egypt-final-presidential-elections-2012

The Carter Center
Presidential Election in Egypt
Egypt that mandate freedom of association, by perpetuating
opaque criteria and arbitrary bureaucratic
procedures that undermine the transparent and timely
registration of CSOs. 139 While the Emergency Law or
other laws with similar provisions restricting political
rights have been in effect, the present legal framework
has been further prone to abuse, infringing on the
right to freedom of expression, due to the threat of
criminal charges against individuals and organizations
advocating for human rights, political liberalization,
and social reform.
Although a coalition of political groups and civil
society organizations has pushed for reform of the
restrictive legal framework governing CSOs, no
meaningful amendments of the legal framework
governing CSOs were implemented during the
presidential electoral process. This absence of reform
impedes the realization of CSOs’ role as valuable
independent stakeholders in the election process.
To better meet its international obligations, The
Carter Center urges Egypt’s future legislators to adopt
new laws that safeguard the freedom of CSOs and
their work from state interference while ensuring
transparency and accountability. This would ensure
Egypt lives up to its obligations to guarantee the
right to participate in public affairs and to promote
transparency. 140
The Role of CSOs in Witnessing the
Presidential Election
Both domestic and international CSOs participated
in the election process, primarily as election
witnesses. Although not required by law, the PEC
made provisions for both national and international
CSOs to witness the process, but only after key electoral
processes including voter registration and candidate
nomination had already concluded. On April 23,
2012, the PEC issued Decision Nos. 11 and 12, which
authorize and regulate the process for domestic and
international CSOs, respectively, to witness the election
process.
While the deadline for submitting applications
to witness was May 2, 2012, the PEC only issued
the badges that individual witnesses must possess to
do their work in the week prior to the first round of
polling. CSOs were only able to witness the polling
days as well as the interim campaign period between
the first and second phase of polling. As a result, the
value of their overall observations of the electoral
process was diminished.
In addition to the timing of the PEC decisions
regulating election witnessing, both domestic and
international CSOs were disappointed by the
reporting restrictions and time limitations for CSO
witnesses. 141 PEC regulations prohibited domestic and
international CSOs from commenting on the process
prior to the announcement of the election results by
the PEC. 142 This is inconsistent with the Declaration
of Principles for International Election Observation
and the Declaration of Global Principles for
Non-Partisan Election Observation and Monitoring
by Citizen Organizations, which both maintain that
election observation missions should be able to freely
issue public statements and reports regarding their
findings and recommendations about the election
processes and developments without interference.
Limiting witnessing missions to after-the-fact statements
means there is no possibility for them to
positively impact the current election process. 143
The Carter Center recognizes that the release of
official election results can only be done by the EMB.
However, the Center urges election officials in the
139 U.N., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article
22(1): “No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of th[e] right [to
associate freely] other than those which are prescribed by law and which
are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security
of public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public
health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
140 U.N., ICCPR, Article 25(a); U.N., United Nations Convention
Against Corruption, Article 5.1
141 Due in large part to these restrictions, 18 national CSOs issued a
statement rejecting PEC decisions regulating election witnessing and
describing them as abusive.
142 See Article 11 of PEC Decision No. 11 for domestic witnesses and
Article 10 of PEC Decision No. 12 for international witnesses.
143 It is worth noting that after much uncertainty, the PEC unofficially
agreed that witness organizations might issue statements after the closing
of polls.
48