There is an immense difference between making a promise and making good on a promise.  Though the results of Egypt’s Parliamentary elections may not have achieved the  outcome preferred or even expected by participants and observers, it still represented a promise of functional democracy within the nation.

That promise was shattered today in an effective coup when the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court invalidated the results on the grounds of the election being unconstitutional, and dissolved the nation’s first democratically-elected Parliament.

The declaration was accompanied by a ruling from the nation’s highest court that Ahmed Shafiq, former Prime Minister under the Mubarak regime, is eligible to participate in the Presidential runoff elections to be held June 16-17.  Meanwhile, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has reclaimed full legislative authority and will appoint an assembly to draft a new national constitution.

Had the results of the Parliamentary election been invalidated soon after their tallying, the declaration of the election’s unconstitutionality would be only slightly more believable.  On the eve of the runoff election, however, the timing of the Court’s decision smacks of political motivation. That the Court chose to dissolve the entirety of the Parliament instead of staging a new election for only the contested seats further reinforces the notion that these decisions were less necessary than they were deliberately calculated to achieve a political end.

The affirmation of Ahmed Shafiq’s eligibility is not surprising and frankly, of less import than the fact that if elected President, he will have unchecked power until a Parliament, hand-picked by the military, is seated.  Lustration, the purging of previous, usually authoritarian elements from a new political framework, has been foundational to some political transitions but is inherently undemocratic in its excluding a segment of society from the equal opportunities secured by democracy.  To this end, there is no legal foundation for requiring the practice in Egypt, despite expectations to the contrary.

The net effect of today’s events in Egypt is a “soft coup” that puts Egypt’s military in the position of political arbiter and is certain to escalate already seething tensions.  The military knew that Mubarak sympathizers in the high court would confirm Ahmed Shafiq’s candidacy, one which promises to keep the military in a prominent position of power. If projections are correct and voter turnout is as low as in the first round, Ahmed Shafiq stands a chance at legitimately winning a Presidency backed by an assembly of military cronies.  The question is: now what?

The US was not comfortable with the results of either the Parliamentary or Presidential elections, both of which indicated popular support for the Muslim Brotherhood.  Despite recognizing a reversion to the status quo, implicit in a government headed by Ahmed Shafiq, is not in the best interests of the Egyptian people, the US has remained suspicious of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political aspirations.

However, today’s developments may require the US to choose between the devil it knows in Hosni Mubarak’s protégé and the Egyptian military, and the unknown in the leadership of Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.  At stake are US relations with its strategic ally in the MENA region, a civil Egypt-Israel relationship, and regional stability.  Amidst the volatility of the Arab Spring, the Syrian conflict, and Iran’s nuclear standoff, the addition of an unstable Egypt to the fray could prove to be more than what regional actors, and world, are able to bear and willing to tolerate.

Be on the look out here for future posts on the outcome of today’s events and this weekend’s elections

Share on Facebook

Tweet