Egypt needs reform, not a new party

At the end of December, the formation of the National Front, a new Egyptian political party, was announced. Since then, it has been the subject of constant debate for four main reasons: the timing of the announcement, how the announcement was made, the background of the founding members and the current political climate.

Parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2025—the Senate is elected in the summer and the Chamber of Deputies in the autumn. The timing of the launch, just in time for the election campaign, suggests the new party was established to operate as a potential new coalition partner, and alternative to other parties, especially those that currently have a relative majority in parliament.

Regarding the manner of the announcement, the extensive media coverage and theatrical staging made it seem as though the National Front was a new ruling party. The founding members took turns walking the red carpet, filmed from every angle by cameras—a ritual strongly associated with statesmen in Arab and Egyptian contexts.

The party's founding members are a mix of prominent personalities from society, journalism, and politics, as well as business people and intellectuals. It is striking, on closer inspection, that those involved share neither an ideological nor a political common denominator. Some of them had even withdrawn from public life years ago.

The above combination of factors supports the hypothesis that this newly founded party will indeed be a new state or ruling party—especially since there has been no clear "state party" since 2013 (when Abdelfattah al-Sisi came to power), as there was under Mubarak.

Since 2013, the political climate in Egypt has been shaped by the fact that many political parties, and particularly those founded after the January 2011 revolution, have undergone a significant loss of vitality. Some parties have ceased all public and party political work out of fear, coercion or desperation, although there have been some temporary rays of hope in recent years, such as the "National Dialogue" and the acquittal of young people who had spent years in prison—encouraging and commendable.

The current controversy is also being fuelled by statements made by some members of the founding committee. For example, journalist Mohamed Mustafa Sherdy had initially vehemently denied on the TEN channel that the party was close to the government, before making other statements that imply the opposite. 

He emphasised that the founding members had already reached the peak of their public work and therefore had no personal ambitions. They were merely trying to "serve Egypt". The members of the founding committee also came from the left and the right, including Nasserists, socialists and liberals.

A weakened party system

Egypt has a long parliamentary tradition and was once considered a pioneer in the region. Representative parliamentary life in Egypt began in 1866, though some say that the foundations of Egyptian parliamentarism were laid as early as 1829 by the Shura Council established by Muhammad Ali.

The party-political tradition is also over a hundred years old. It began with the national movement led by Mustafa Kamel and the founding of the National Party in 1907. Then, after the 1919 revolution, Egypt experienced an era of party-political diversity that lasted until the end of the monarchy in 1952.

Party pluralism did have its shortcomings during this phase, not least due to the influence the British occupation exercised over the palace, the government and Egyptian decision-making. In response to the pressure, the palace constantly strived to create a party which was loyal to the monarchy and that would impose the king's will on the government.

But the historical context should not be forgotten: the party-political diversity of this phase was exceptionally progressive. Among non-Western countries, Egypt was seen as a pioneer of political modernisation. Most significantly, power was able to transfer peacefully between parties, something that has not been repeated in Egpyt since.

What followed is well known: Nasser's rule (1954–70) was marked by a single-party system. Sadat (1970–81) expanded this into three parties, and during Mubarak's era (1981–2011), Egypt's political life was defined by limited pluralism—still far from democratic parliamentarism.

Finally, the January 2011 revolution paved the way for the establishment of further parties. Yet as we know, this brief period did not end with a peaceful transfer of power.

Between 1953 and 2013, two fundamental features defined political life in Egypt. First, there was never a peaceful transfer of power between parties. Second, there was always a party closely aligned with the president, responsible for tasks such as forming the government, shaping legislative proposals, and contributing to constitutional amendments.

The first feature— a failure to peacefully transfer power— has remained to this day, which can be attributed to a weakening of party operations. This weakening is evident not only in comparison with the period between 2011 and 2013, but also in comparison with the Mubarak era.

The second feature, on the other hand, is no longer present. Adly Mansour, president from 2013 to 2014, did not have a political party due to the circumstances and transitional year surrounding his assumption of office, while President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi never indicated any desire to have his own party.

Divisions in all parties

Even if there is no presidential party, there are political parties that can be described as "loyal to the government". Since the 2014 presidential election and the 2015 parliamentary election, three types of political parties can be identified in Egypt: opposition parties that withdrew and did not run in the election or were forced to withdraw; opposition parties that stood in the elections but were unsuccessful, and finally, parties loyal to the government.

The latter are, in turn, divided into two groups: those who support the president and the government, and those who, while still loyal to the president, quarrel with him—though this does not place them in the opposition. This group holds a few symbolic seats in parliament.

We can add three further observations:

• Firstly, Egypt is still in a state of limited pluralism as it was before 2011.
• Secondly, the representative function of the parties has given way to a service function. This means that people no longer regard the parties as a political authority that represents them and serves to monitor the executive.
• Thirdly, party politics is generally weak. There are various reasons for this. Some are systemic, while others are due to the parties themselves. The government remains indirectly the main player in elections, while the role of parties is declining in contrast to the role of individuals. Certainly, the current electoral system has favoured this.

If we now also consider that some opposition parties are divided due to internal disputes, we can conclude that Egypt does not need new parties at the moment. 

Instead, it needs an activation of party political operations, which requires more than just a national dialogue. It requires a revision of the electoral laws, a more neutral electoral administration and, above all, a development of the political will that enables more political openness.

This text is an edited translation of the Arabic original, which was published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Shurouq on 4 January. Translated from German by Louise East.