egypt-final-presidential-elections-2012

The Carter Center
Presidential Election in Egypt
absence of candidate agents, media representatives,
and domestic and international witnesses at this
crucial juncture of the election process severely
undermines the overall transparency of the election
results. The Carter Center strongly recommends
that future election management bodies take steps
to ensure that candidate agents, witnesses, and the
media have unencumbered, meaningful access to
observation of all steps of the process, including the
final aggregation process, as a means of allaying fears
about the integrity of the vote and to maximize the
transparency of the process for all stakeholders.
Security of DGC Facilities: DGC facilities were
orderly and well-secured by police and military
officials across both rounds of the election. It is noteworthy
that security forces were also observed inside
aggregation centers in more than three-quarters of
cases during the first round and in two-thirds of all
centers in the second round. Although there was no
interference observed on the part of security forces,
their presence might have been intimidating to candidate
agents and election staff, and in the future, security
forces should remain outside aggregation centers
unless called upon to assist in ensuring an orderly
environment inside the center.
Transparency of Aggregation Process: The transparency
of the aggregation process was hindered by the
physical layout of the DGCs visited. While the aggregation
processes observed were free from any disruptions,
Carter Center witnesses reported that during
the first round of voting, in over half of the DGCs
visited, the physical layout did not allow witnesses
to observe the transfer of data from count forms to
aggregation forms. Access of international witnesses
improved during the second round of voting,
and Carter Center witnesses reported that only a
handful of DGCs in the second round operated in a
nontransparent way that prevented witnessing the
aggregation of the results. Unfortunately, similarly to
the first round, domestic witnesses continued to face
constraints in meaningfully observing the aggregation
process at DGCs. Future election management bodies
should ensure that all candidate agents, domestic
witnesses, and international witnesses have equality
of access to the aggregation process throughout the
relevant periods of the electoral process. In addition,
particularly given the fact that there is no outside
access to the final aggregation of results in Cairo, it
is essential that the PEC publish vote results broken
down to the polling-station level at the earliest
possible instance on their website, for both the first
and second rounds of polling. 170
Presence of Candidate Agents, Domestic Witnesses,
and Media: Candidate agents, domestic witnesses,
and media were present in slightly more than half
of aggregation centers. While candidate agents were
seen in most centers, domestic witnesses and accredited
media were absent from many DGCs. No women
candidate agents were observed in any of the district
general committees. This may in part be for cultural
reasons. DGCs started their work very late at night,
when Egyptian women are traditionally expected to
be at home.
Ballot Validity Review: Unfortunately, it was
unlikely that DGC judges had a meaningful opportunity
to review polling station decisions determining
whether ballots were valid or invalid, even
though these committees are authorized to do so in
accordance with the electoral law. Future electoral
processes could benefit by having an election management
body clearly disseminate information on the
process of challenging ballot validity at the pollingstation
and DGC level and the responsibilities of
polling station and DGC officials in the process.
170 In meetings with The Carter Center, the PEC committed to do so
within one week of the election but failed to do so. The Carter Center
urges the PEC to publish polling station-level data for the benefit of
electoral stakeholders.
60