A friend whose name is on the rolls of the Electoral College tells me he wants to run for the Federal National Council (FNC) elections. He says he has been given the chance, which might not be given to him again. He sees it this way.
He adds that he is not sure if his name will be on the rolls the next time and points to me. "Look what happened to you — you were on the rolls in 2006. Now you cannot run for elections or vote."
He says: "Dear friend, I will take the chance." And I reply that he also runs the risk of not winning the elections.
"So what?" he remarks. "I don't care. If I win, I am one of the few victors. If I don't, then at least I tried." I then ask why he wants to run for elections. "Do you have a manifesto? Do you want to help change things?," I query.
"Of course!" he says. "I know the winners will have no authority. But why should others run and I shouldn't? At least if I win, I will have privileges, which I don't have now. My salary isn't good and I am retired."
He then looks at me angrily and says: "If you don't want to support me with all your family and friends in the Electoral College, tell me now so I don't waste my time." He puts an end to the conversation.
During the FNC road shows in Dubai, I heard there were many like my friend who fancy running for elections — retired people, current employees, including senior managers, women and even fresh graduates. And they all think the same way. It is an opportunity. Opportunity for what? To serve the country? To fulfil the needs and demands of the people who will vote for you? To solve problems? Or to empower the political lives of citizens leading to more participation in the decision-making process?
The answer in my opinion is that the candidates will claim so. But, in fact, the answer would be none of the above.
Why am I saying this? It is because people who are participating and those who are not taking part in the second stage of this episode towards democracy will always remember the FNC has limited authority, if we don't want to describe it as having no powers at all. And the FNC is always driven by the government's, and not by the people's agenda.
Candidates know this. They cannot claim any manifesto or make any promises. They are running for elections only to enter the club of the political elite. A person who knows in advance that he cannot make any changes, or have any influence to fulfil any of his promises (in case he has a real manifesto) becomes a candidate because he knows he has no value in the FNC. The executive authority will give him no ear unless it chooses to do so. This is why this candidate, whatever be his promises and despite his honesty, is running for elections to fulfil his interests. Some say he is raising slogans in the air, while others take it as cheating.
The question arises: Is he a real candidate or is he a self-seeking man? Why I am saying this is? Because, as I said in my previous article, the FNC must be empowered and so must the members of the house. This will give meaning and wings to candidates' promises and manifestos.
Participation
This is a very sorry situation because on the one hand we want people to be encouraged to run for the FNC elections so they can have an opinion and share in the building of the nation. While on the other hand, because of the limited role of the FNC, we take away from them one of the main tools for candidacy. The manifesto has no meaning.
The Electoral College has seen members sky-rocketing from 6,000 in 2006 to 129,274 members today. Hundreds of self-seeking people will push forward and become candidates because the only motivation will be: how many members they know in the Electoral College, how much support they will get and will they gain from the FNC. The potential candidates will not be motivated by real national interests.
Am I wrong? I could be. I could be exaggerating. But this is a feeling I have whenever I meet a member of the Electoral College, who thinks he is good enough to be a candidate. And in fact, I know all the people are good. I know that it is the right of every citizen to stand for elections, but not everyone should participate in the political process unless he has a vision and political acumen.
By saying this, I do not mean that what is happening is wrong. It is miles better than nothing. It is miles better than stagnation. And to question and answer issues surrounding this process — like my article you are reading — is part of that participation and part of the national dialogue and debate. Every citizen, be it a member of the Electoral College or a non-member, must participate in this dialogue with thoughts and opinions to make the process more mature and fruitful.
