“If elections would change anything, they would be illegal”
This old Anarchist slogan seems to be appropriate in describing the upcoming Egyptian parliamentary elections and the position of the National Salvation Front (NSF). In a decision that will have far reaching ramifications for all parties involved, the NSF, an umbrella opposition organization has decided to boycott the upcoming election scheduled in April. This decision will impact the nature of the Egyptian political scene for years to come. It signals the “End of the Façade”.
During the Mubarak era, elections were held regularly; a show necessary for the creation of the illusion of legitimacy. The Mubarak regime even introduced the first multi-party elections in the constitutional amendments of 2005, arguably liberalizing the Egyptian political system. All of this was an elaborate smoke screen to hide the nature of the regime, which was in effect a Liberal Autocracy.
The goal of the President seems to be power consolidation through coercion rather than consent. The previous popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood is collapsing, and the President seems to be unconcerned
In other words the regime liberalized, but only within certain limits that were deemed necessary but not threatening to the existence of the current order. In order for this process to be convincing the Mubarak regime needed an opposition that was strong enough to appear genuine, but not a movement seriously aimed at changing the system. The opposition needed to be committed to the existing political framework. In short, the regime needed a domesticated opposition that it could co-opt or suppress as required. The Muslim Brotherhood took up this mantle that allowed it to thrive under the Mubarak regime and also to infiltrate civil society.
The Muslim Brotherhood is attempting to re-create the same illusion. Relying on a narrow definition of Democracy as elections, rather as the creation of Democratic institutions, the Brotherhood is trying to create legitimacy for its rule by winning as many elections as possible. At the same time, President Morsi has followed the logic of coercion, triggering one political crisis after the other and marginalizing allies and opponents alike. This marginalization has extended to include other Islamist parties that were once allies of the Brotherhood, most notably the Salafi Parties that are now forming their own alliances to face the Brotherhood.
Relying on a narrow definition of Democracy as elections, rather as the creation of Democratic institutions, the Brotherhood is trying to create legitimacy for its rule by winning as many elections as possible
The goal of the President seems to be power consolidation through coercion rather than consent. The previous popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood is collapsing, and the President seems to be unconcerned. There are no indications that he is willing to change course or that he is willing to reach out to the opposition. Building societal consent is absent from the agenda. Morsi is following the same logic of the Mubarak regime, the logic of the “Liberal Autocracy”. In effect, narrowing his base of support and creating a self-imposed isolation. Essentially, he picked up where Mubarak left off.
The decision of the NSF to boycott has dealt a serious blow to legitimacy of the upcoming elections and the project of the “Liberal Autocracy”. Before this decision the NSF seems to have been committed to participation in the current political process within the current political framework. This was exemplified in its decision to participate in the Constitutional Referendum in the middle of major political turmoil and violence. However, its decision to boycott the parliamentary elections indicates a shift towards a commitment to change from outside the current political process. In short it indicates a change in their stance and a renewed commitment to the continuation of the revolution. The NSF was not coopted by the Muslim Brotherhood and they refused to accept the role of the domesticated opposition. Without their participation the logic of the “Ballot Box” faces major challenges. The idea of “legitimate election” needs the notion of choice.
Some might argue that by boycotting the NSF will marginalize itself. It will simply leave the arena open for the Islamist to gain control of the Parliament, which in turn will lead to greater consolidation of power in the hands of the Brotherhood. However, this logic ignores the possible fundamental shift in the stance of the NSF to a more revolutionary position. This position will garner it support among the revolutionary forces and the increasingly disenfranchised. With the spread of political violence to the periphery and the return of notorious repressive apparatus of the Egyptian police, participation in elections will serve to legitimize the logic of coercion and the narrowing down of Democracy to elections. This will reduce the level of support of the NSF among its core constituency, namely the urban Middle class and minorities. This core constituency has been steadily losing faith in the political process and a boycott favors their aspirations and polishes the revolutionary credentials of the NSF.
Ultimately, the decision of the NSF is an indication of the belief commonly held among many that the Mubarak regime has been recreated in a new disguise. Thus, participation in the political process is futile and counterproductive. This decision has opened the way for intensifying the current struggle, shaking the foundation of Morsi’s legitimacy and deepening the divide between the opposition and the Muslim Brotherhood.
