The
winner, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the former army field marshal, was
universally perceived as the candidate of the state, the political
establishment and the business elite, and his victory had been so widely
expected that it was almost a formality. Election
officials said Thursday that Mr. Sisi’s only opponent, Hamdeen Sabahi,
had won less than 3 percent of the vote. He finished basically tied with
the number of ballots that had been defaced to protest what critics
called the undemocratic climate and limited choices.
Supporters
of Mr. Sisi counted on the election to legitimize his leadership after
the military ouster last summer of President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim
Brotherhood, considered Egypt’s first fairly elected leader. Officials
said Thursday that about 47 percent of the roughly 54 million eligible
voters had cast ballots, giving Mr. Sisi 23.9 million votes. By
comparison, Mr. Morsi received about 13.2 million votes in 2012, in a
close and competitive race against another former general, Ahmed Shafik.
The
strong turnout followed days of public hand-wringing about the apparent
emptiness of the polling stations. The absence of voters was so
conspicuous on the first two scheduled days of balloting that election
officials took the extraordinary step of adding a third day at the last
minute, to strengthen the total turnout.
Both
teams of foreign observers faulted the last-minute addition of a third
day as a needless irregularity that raised doubts about the credibility
of the process and the independence of the election authorities. Mr.
Bjornlund of Democracy International said his observers had seen no
impediments to voting on the first two days that might have justified a
third day, and the European Union delegation said the third day “caused
unnecessary uncertainty in the electoral process. Egyptian
officials said supervision of the government’s High Presidential
Election Commission, composed of senior judges, was politically
independent and assured the integrity of the vote. But in previous
Egyptian elections the best checks on fraud were parallel counts by
independent political groups — principally the Muslim Brotherhood — as
well as the close monitoring of representatives of opposing campaigns.
Source: New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment