During the years 2005-2011, legalized opposition was successfully domesticated by the Mubarak’s regime. It was weak, loyal, coopted, coerced and permit/agree to state clientalism.
Opposition as Weak:
The legalized opposition was weak externally in its effect on the regime’s policies and internally due to the fragmentations and divisions within the party.
Their external weakness can be seen through their voting behaviour in parliament. Will focus on their reaction to three vital issues deliberated in parliament from 2005-2010 namely the amendment of Article 76 of the constitution to allow for Egypt's first ever multi-candidate presidential elections (2005) seen as tailored for the grooming of Gamal Mubarak, extension of the notorious emergency law, and amendment of 34 articles in the constitution (2007) seen by MB and some liberals as a constitutional setback that aims to reinforce presidential powers, and provided the Shura Council with larger legislative role. The amendments also included the controversial decision to make sure that elections can be conducted in a single day eliminating judicial supervision as the case was before 2000. Despite rejections for the three moves by opposition and months of debate, there was no real action from the legalized opposition to resist them. Legalized opposition was reportedly among the broad opposing movement to the three moves. However they have a history of backtracking on the voting day. Their reaction varied between not showing up during the voting day (Wafdist Mahmoud Abaza in the 2007 voting on the amendment of 34 articles in the constitution) or showing up but abstaining from voting as or agreeing with the controversial law as Tagammu and Wafd parties did concerning the extens...
... middle of paper ...
...politicians.
For example, the court ruled that construction magnate Mohamed Murshidi, NDP candidate for the professional ( fiaat ) seat in the south Cairo district of Maadi, had relied on both the security forces and supervising judges to win the seat.
A report by the Court of Cassation implicated senior judge Mohamed Siddiq Borhan in election irregularities and in manipulating the results in favour of the NDP candidate. The court found that the Wafd candidate Fouad Badrawi had been well on the way to victory before “security forces swooped down on the vote- counting station and began, in coordination with the presiding judge, to change the results.” (Al-Ahram Weekly)
The 2010 parliamentary elections were another scandal Orchestrated by NDP where no opposition won a seat in the parliament and was probably one of the reasons that led to the 2011 revolution.
The Conservatives made many mistakes in policy which alienated much of their support base that originally elected them into power.
majority of the states, and those that were on the ballot in a majority of
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
Ridel, B, 'The real losers in Egypt's uprising', The Daily Best Online, 13 February 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011< http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-13/al-qaeda-absent-in-hosni-mubaraks-fall-and-egyptian-revolution/>
Tanguay, Brian . "Electoral Reform in Canada: Addressing the Democratic Deficit | Manitoba Law Journal." Robson Hall Faculty of Law. http://robsonhall.ca/mlj/content/electoral-reform-canada-addressing-democratic-deficit (accessed October 21, 2013).
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
Anderson, Lisa. "Qaddafi, Muammar al-." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
..., & News, C. (n.d.). CBC News Indepth: The 39th Parliament - Harper at the helm. CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/quebecnation-history.html
In the end Egypt is a large country in the Middle East full of rough terrain and climate changes. Their history dates back to the beginning of time and the people of Egypt have seen a lot of change. From the Pharaohs of early Egypt to the Military ran Government of today. They have a military that is the largest in the Middle East. A military that has pulled multiple coup d’état’s and currently runs the country. It is safe to say that Egypt will remain very unstable both socially and economically at least in the near future. The Egyptian people have proven that they will continue to fight until they have the country they have always wanted.
In those countries that have not experienced government upheaval, a common outcome of the Arab Spring has been sustained civil unrest, political instability, and the extension of political and economic concessions by leaders seeking to appease protesters. Many questions could arise as one contemplated those events. One of these questions would be: Why has the Arab Spring produced different results across the Middle East? This paper is a humble attempt to suggest some answers to this sort of these logical questions.
As the Arab Spring enters its second year, major uprisings and revolts have occurred all over the Middle East, pushing for an end to the corrupt autocratic rule and an expansion of civil liberties and political rights. Most recently, images from Syria have emerged, depicting the government’s use of force to suppress the voice of its people. One might ask, “Is this the beginning of a revolution? Is the country on the path to democracy?” To assess this question and examine the future trends in the region, one must look back on the country’s somewhat tumultuous history, the relationship between the citizens and the state, and the political economy.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
The Egyptian political system refers to the rules, regulations, practices, political structure and fundamental laws all which show how the government, its state power and relationship between the state and society works (Chapin). Egypt is a democratic country. In the 1990’s, there was an up rise in the Islamic religion, causing nationwide riots and issues. This was partly due to Egypt’s government officials having imperial powers over the country. Since then, Egypt’s position on the democratic scale of progression is improving.
Egyptian’ are and Arabic speaking nation-state with a diverse culture and heritage as a modern nation-state. Their development, over the centuries, saw conflicting beliefs but, most Egyptians today see themselves, their history, culture, and language as specifically Egyptian. Mr. Kamel states that the, “Egypt’s leading role in Middle Eastern cultural and political affairs, generally dominates Egypt’s relations with other nations. In turn, this either broadens or limits the scope of choices and opportunities available domestically” (Kamel, 1999). Egypt as a state; their politics are organized under a multi-party semi-presidential system, where the executive power is divided between the President and the Prime Minister.