Electoral dirty tricks

Egypt's elections: Dirty tricks | The Economist:

FIRST came unsigned leaflets claiming that the candidate for the Egyptian Bloc, a secularist group, was a communist atheist. Then pamphlets accusing him of being a capitalist crony of the disgraced former regime appeared. Other rumours swirled around the parliamentary district in rural Upper Egypt where he was standing. Some said the Egyptian Bloc was backed by Freemasons and Jews. Others fingered the Coptic Church. On the morning of the vote, pick-up trucks mounted with megaphones fanned out to deliver a coup de grace. Congratulations to the Egyptian Bloc, they blared. Its candidate has been appointed a cabinet minister in Cairo and has withdrawn from the race.

Politics is a rough game everywhere. As it happens the Egyptian Bloc won that seat anyway. But one might have expected a gentler touch from the Islamist parties contesting Egypt's first free parliamentary elections in decades, which enter the second of three regional rounds of voting this week. The Islamists claim the high moral ground, saying they want a return to the principles and values of the pure faith. Yet Egypt's two main Islamist political forces, the Muslim Brotherhood and the puritan Salafists, which together look set to capture as many as two thirds of parliamentary seats, are playing electoral hardball not only against their secular opponents, but against each other too.

What strikes me is that not more dirty tricks have been used against Islamists. The former regime use to be pretty good at it, and they are vulnerable to charges of working for foreign interests (Saudi, Iran...) as well as (perversely) accusations of religious heresy: Salafis as against traditional Islam (the Sufi line) or crypto-al-Qaeda, Muslim Brothers as being a secret society with a bizarre worship of Hassan al-Banna (a frequent Salafi line of attack), use their morality against them by staging sting operations, alleging affairs, etc. Granted some of this has been done by secularists complaining about the Salafis being Saudi-funded, but that's pretty minor compared to the Salafis' (illegal) use of mosques for electioneering, etc.

Comments

[Balasticman]

That is a highly debatable, and ultimately misleading argument. There has been abundant fear-mongering (righfully, in my view) about the Islamists, and your own writings have pointed to some of the more blatant forms of electoral abuse used by non-Islamist candidates. The Islamists are not winning because of dirty tactics; they are winnng because of an under-educated, conservative and systemically absued majority of the population that believes in them, and does not believe in the poorly organized alternatives. Suggesting otherwise misses the point, and will simply prolong any correction of the misguided approach of secular reformists to attempt in vain to effectuate change through populist appeal.

[aq]

The plethora of satelite channels owned by liberals have already run massive scare stories about the brotherhood and salafi's, some coptic leaders even spoke about the need for US intervention, but people still voted for islamist parties, because they are the ones they trust. The fact that you thing it is ok applying the shockingly immoral tactics suggested in your blog goes quite far in exposing your mindset. Its not the use of more dirty tactics which the liberals need to learn, no they need a coherent message which resonates with the people. I suggest less attacking islamists and realising that they live in a majority muslim nation, hence giving the religious views of those citizens some respect.

[egyptian-american]

Aq, thats an understandable point. But how do you account for the Copts feeling when, historically, the Copts are the indigenous people of Egypt.

Setting aside that point, I think its fair to say any underhanded activity to generate votes should be stopped and the party should be disgraced. If a party can not stand on its own philosophy they shouldn't have to use dirty tactics to get elected.

Now with the salafi philosophy, what is a reasonable, secular person to think will happen to the economy and his/her peace and livelihood if the salafi's actually implement and follow their philosophy?

[Anon]

Living in Europe we have all sorts of political parties which represent portions of the society, many of whom I find difficult to digest. However the point of a democratic and pluralistic system is not that the cuddly liberal parties which you agree with win the elections every time. No it is that society is reflected in it's rulers, who speak for them and not at them, if that means a 24% salafi voice, then you and I should both grow up accept that. Making up scare stories and inflating stories of electoral irregularities is not the way forward, completing the electoral process and then holding the new rulers to account, whoever they maybe, is. Finally saying that Copts are the indigenous people of Egypt, implying the Muslims are not is historically incorrect. Most of Egypts Muslims are descendants of copts and other indigenous peoples of Egypt. The Copts have a valid and important place in Egypt's past, present and future. However their presence should not dictate to the rest of Egypt's citizens as to how they run their state. I am sure you would agree that America's Muslim minority should not dictate the running of that country to it's majority, rather they should be a voice amongst other voices.