Why dictators hold elections
Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,
Bashar al-Assad and the façade of legitimacy
The Independent
Robert Fisk
09 May 2014
It is
easy to be cynical about candidates winning 80 per cent of the
vote but for some Middle East regimes the appearance of democracy is
enough to secure the covert backing of Western powers
Why do dictators love elections? It’s an old question in the Middle
East, but it needs answering yet again when Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is
going to win the Egyptian presidential election this month and when
President Bashar al-Assad is going to be re-elected in Syria next
month. Will they get 90 per cent of the vote, or will they keep safely
in the 80s like sick old Abdelaziz Bouteflika who picked up a measly
81.5 per cent in Algeria?
Surely, Sisi will have to be awarded at least 82 per cent in order to
show that he is no Bouteflika. As for Assad, the high 90s might be
predicted although – given the 2.5 million Syrian refugees now living
outside the country – that might be pushing credibility a bit far. Yet
he’s got only two competitors, both MPs in the current parliament, and
who really expects Assad family rule to end in June after 44 years? So
no cliffhangers in Cairo or Damascus.
Abdel Fatah al-Sisi
won 96.1% of vote in Egypt presidential election, say officials
Electoral
commission says 47.5% of Egypt's 53 million eligible voters
participated in election
—headline, The Guardian 03 June 2014
The truth, of course, is that Sisi and Assad are not standing because
they need electoral support. Egypt’s former field marshal – he
officially left the army in order to stand in elections at the end of
this month – needs to protect the Egyptian military’s huge economic
empire and the investment of his fellow generals in energy, bottled
water companies, real estate, shopping malls and furniture stores.
That’s why Sisi believes it would be “inappropriate” for civilians to
have control over the army’s budget – and why he wants a new clause in
the Egyptian constitution to that effect.
Assad, on the other hand, wants to ensure that the Geneva “peace” talks
– supposedly aimed at the creation of a “transitional” government in
Damascus – are dead in the water. If he is re-elected President next
month – and there really is no “if” about it – how can a “transitional”
government be created? And since new electoral laws in Syria state that
presidential candidates have to have lived in Syria for 10 years prior
to the election, none of Assad’s external critics can stand. So no
surprises if 90 per cent becomes flavour of the day.
After all, Assad’s forces are winning the civil war in Syria in which
perhaps 150,000 men, women and children have died – although that
statistic might be as dodgy as election results. Cynicism usually
accompanies Arab elections – but it’s always possible to underestimate
the popularity of the patriarchal figures who come to power. Millions
of Egyptians do support Sisi and equally supported his military coup
against the country’s first elected president, Mohamed Morsi, whose own
51.7 per cent election victory was – by dictator standards – pretty
pathetic.
Sisi has also effectively ensured that the Muslim Brotherhood, to which
Morsi belonged, is now banned in Egypt as a “terrorist organisation”.
In fact, both Sisi and Assad claim they are – like Bush, Blair and
other worthy historical figures from our recent past – fighting “a war
on terror”.
US and UK congratulate Sisi on election win
headline, Al Jazeera—04 June 2014
Thus do our own Western fantasies come to the aid of Middle Eastern
regimes. For it’s not by chance that Tony Blair himself – still
chuntering away on the dangers of Islamist “fundamentalism” – has given
his wholehearted support to Sisi’s coup and future presidency, and even
shown mild enthusiasm for Assad who might be permitted to remain in
power during “some kind of peaceful transition to a new constitution”.
To have Blair’s backing might be regarded as a grave political setback
for any politician – but not, perhaps, in parts of the Arab world.
Nor must we forget our own little hypocrisies. John Kerry, whose
condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea is matched only by
silence in the face of Israel’s annexation of Golan and appropriation
of stolen land, believes it is farcical for Assad to hold an election
during a war – but essential that Ukraine holds elections when its
eastern cities have fallen totally outside government control. And an
American President who could congratulate President Hamid Karzai of
Afghanistan on his last fraudulent election victory can hardly fail to
give his good wishes to Sisi once he wins in Egypt – a message that
will, be sure, arrive wrapped up in much enthusiasm for Sisi’s role in
“transitioning” his country back to “democracy”.
Sisi, and perhaps Assad too, are assured of our covert Western support
if they protect – or do not challenge – Israeli power. Which is one
reason why our diplomats are talking about the possible “necessity” of
Assad’s continued presidency. The fact that Sisi has morphed the
Brotherhood into al-Qa’ida and “terror” – without the slightest
evidence – has gone unchallenged in the West.
Nor has anyone been complaining when the diplomats of Beirut slip
across to Damascus – quietly, of course – in the hope of renewing old
friendships with Assad’s regime. It’s worth remembering that not so
long ago, this same regime was receiving “renditioned” prisoners for
the Americans and subjecting them to a bit of rough stuff in the cells
while interrogating them about their anti-American “terrorism”. Also
worth recalling, perhaps, are the congratulations Sisi received after
staging his coup against Morsi last year – which arrived post-haste
from Assad himself.
Eighty-two per cent for Sisi, 90 per cent for Assad – that’s to cut out
and keep. And then we’ll see how the “real” figures match up.
top
contents
appendices
previous next