Simultaneous elections were held in Syria, where there was no ballot box, and Egypt, where there were no voters. It was impossible to locate ballot boxes everywhere in Syria due to the civil war. Ballot boxes were set up in districts under regime control, which means pro-Assad voters went to the polls. In other words, it"s an election in which there is no need for the ballot box at all.
The election in Egypt, that was supposed to last for two days, was extended to three days, but there was zero appeal by the Egyptians. As one can imagine, at the end of the two days, the full attendance was below a ten percent. On the third day, the army members and the police participated in voting for the sake of appearance. It raised the level to a sound rate. All the indicators proved that the attendance rate was too low that at the end of the third day the percentage of voters was announced as 47 percent in total.
An election without a ballot box and the other without voters! It is clear that both elections are trying to fool some people but whom? Of course whoever wants to buy.
Meanwhile both the EU and the US have already showed their intent to accept this situation compatible with fundamental democracy practices.
Mario David, the head of EU"s observation committee who participated in the elections, said "According to the committee"s report, the election was accomplished compatibly with the law and calm atmosphere. However, certain incidents occurred that did not meet the constitutional principles" in his press statement in Cairo. Indeed, everyone testified that the atmosphere was so calm. In fact, there was no voter at the ballot boxes at all!
David added that "Many citizens could not vote because they did not have IDs. We observed 47 percentage of attendance. Vote counting system was regular. All the ballot boxes were opened properly and on time."
It is disappointing that an EU committee observer"s sense of "success" for the elections in Egypt, which has been through a military coup, is limited with "calmness". Does the fact that an election was completed in a "calm" environment indicate its success? In that case, would we go too far if we asked from EU to send an observer like Mr. David to Turkey, to observe the Gezi incidents and the democratization process in Turkey? If so, why don"t they simply recruit such reporters instead of the ones who think they serve for the detective service and who just and on purpose reports convicts from the charges of murder, rape under "journalists" category?
There was an election extended to the third day because of the extreme disinterest of the public. How come they don"t question the causes and effects of this extension?
If there is no second option, and what seems to be an option is simply a setting, how can we call this an election? At the face of these questions, David said that there was nothing illegal about extending it one more day at the end of the two days. He also noted that this extension did not affect the election result. If it were not going to affect the result, then why did they extend it to the third day?
There are people who are trying to fool the world, but there are those cunnings who play the fool.
Eventually, anyhow they found a way to justify the elections results to suit over the 95 percentage in accordance with the constant conventions of this territory.
As one may expect, the EU, USA and Arabic countries may play the fool and accept these election results legitimate but this it won"t solve the problem. Why? Because these elections didn"t include the public and the potential voter. Egyptians have preserved their noble stance since the coup détat last year and boycotted the elections by almost 90 per cent.
Don"t mind how this cry is being suppressed through cunning intrigues. The biggest negligence of those who treat everyone as a fool is the cost of their foolishnesses to themselves. At the end, they don"t have any other enemies other than their own foolishness.
gypt and Syria