On Monday, May 26, the Civil Democratic Movement held a press conference at the headquarters of the Conservative Party in downtown Cairo to declare its position on the upcoming parliamentary elections and to publicly reject the new electoral law passed by parliament.
Several prominent leaders from the movement’s parties participated in the event, including Talat Khalil (General Coordinator of the Movement), Akmal Kortam (Head of the Conservative Party), Gameela Ismail (Head of the Constitution Party), Akram Ismail (Political Coordination Officer at the Bread and Freedom Party—under formation), and Sayed El-Toukhy (Head of the Karama Party). The speakers issued sharp criticism of the law, stating that it aims to reproduce the current composition of parliament while excluding any meaningful opportunity for real political pluralism.
Despite its rejection of the law, the movement clarified that it has not yet made a final decision on whether to contest the upcoming elections, emphasizing that participation is still under discussion and will depend on its reading of political developments and its ability to wage a real electoral campaign.
The New Law: Closed Lists and No Guarantees of Representation
According to the amendments passed by the House of Representatives, the new law combines the absolute closed-list system with the individual candidacy system. It divides the country into four electoral districts for list seats and 284 districts for individual candidates. The total number of seats remains at 568, not including presidential appointees. Seats are allocated as follows: two lists of 102 seats each, two lists of 40 seats, and 284 seats for individual contests.
The Egyptian Constitution does not mandate a specific electoral system, leaving it to be defined by law. Article 102 of the Constitution states that the law shall determine the electoral system and the division of districts in a way that ensures fair representation of the population and governorates, allowing for individual, list-based, or mixed systems.
This article was central to discussions during the National Dialogue sessions initiated by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. Opposition groups, led by the Civil Democratic Movement, advocated for adopting an open proportional list system as the most just and representative of societal diversity. In contrast, majority parties such as Mostaqbal Watan and Homat El Watan insisted on maintaining the absolute closed-list system—ultimately enshrined in the new legislation.
A Law That Fails to Reflect Democratic Aspirations
Akram Ismail, Political Coordination Officer at the Bread and Freedom Party and a board member of the Civil Democratic Movement, told Zawia3 that the press conference was held to express the movement’s rejection of the law, which combines the closed-list and individual systems.
Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Ismail described the law as a major step backward from the demands of democratic forces that have long fought for a fair electoral system. He argued that no serious political or social reform in Egypt can begin without an electoral law that ensures pluralism and true representation.
Ismail added that the movement had clearly expressed its position during several key political milestones, especially the National Dialogue sessions, where it called for the adoption of an open proportional list system. This, he explained, allows political programs to compete and reflects the political, social, religious, and ethnic diversity within society. It also ensures that votes are not wasted and enables parties to present clear platforms for voters to choose from.
The movement had explicitly demanded that this system be included in the political dialogue’s recommendations, Ismail said, but the final law ignored those calls—reproducing a legislative framework that neither reflects the will of democratic forces nor opens the door to serious political participation.
He went on to say that the current political, legal, and security context constitutes a stifling environment that limits opposition activity, restricts freedom of expression, and prevents party expansion. The broader climate, he argued, shows no openness toward the idea of free elections—pointing out the suspension of student elections at universities, the absence of local council elections, and the redesign of parliamentary elections in ways that reinforce the status quo.
Despite this, Ismail noted that the movement is currently holding internal consultations on how to approach the elections, given the limited space available. Participation, he insisted, should not be symbolic, but rather a genuine attempt to present political and social alternatives and engage with voters—even if the electoral process is saturated with political control and seat allocations based on loyalty and political money.
He emphasized that the decision to participate or boycott is not about punishing the regime, but a strategic choice based on the movement’s ability to effectively reach and represent the public. “We are not concerned with legitimizing or delegitimizing the regime,” he said, “but with evaluating the usefulness of participation as a tool to communicate our voice and political vision.”
Ismail warned that one form of electoral repression in authoritarian systems is narrowing the scope of competition to secure predetermined outcomes. He stressed that the role of the opposition is to expand any available space and fight real political battles, even within limited margins. “If the debate on the criminal procedure law is postponed to the next parliament, do we not have the right to enter the elections to say: elect us to overturn that law?”
He concluded that the movement’s participation isn’t just about winning seats—it’s about sending a political message: that there are forces willing to represent and defend the public interest. The goal is to reestablish the opposition as a serious political actor and to build a popular base that can pave the way for broader, deeper representation in the future.
Ismail ended by stressing that continued participation depends on the movement’s ability to operate freely during the electoral process. “If the space completely closes, we will be forced to step back. But if even a small window remains open, we will use it—because staying in the arena, even in a limited capacity, is essential to building a genuine, sustainable opposition.”
Insisting on Participation, Despite Setbacks
Gameela Ismail, President of the Constitution Party and member of the Civil Democratic Movement’s Board of Trustees, said the movement’s participation in the National Dialogue was driven by hopes of triggering real democratic change. However, the new electoral law reflects a continued policy of security control and the exclusion of popular will. She warned that the next parliament is likely to be yet another reproduction of a political landscape dominated by the security apparatus, rather than one that reflects the people’s will.
Speaking to Zawia3, Ismail emphasized the movement’s commitment to participation, despite what she called “a reality weighed down by setbacks.” She said:
“We still believe in the importance of representing the people and voicing their aspirations. Our goal is a parliament that reflects the will of Egyptians—not one shaped by political money or security influence.”
During her speech at the press conference, Ismail described the upcoming parliamentary elections as “another missed opportunity”—one more in a series of chances the regime has squandered to turn popular anger into constructive political energy and open a new path for the country. She strongly criticized the way the electoral law was passed, calling the government’s insistence on enacting it a deliberate move to shut down political space. She urged a reversal of this course and called for opening the field to ensure a minimum level of pluralism and representation.
Electoral Engagement, Not Withdrawal
Talat Khalil, Chairman of the Civil Democratic Movement’s Board of Trustees, affirmed that the option to boycott has not been discussed within the movement, despite numerous reservations about the electoral climate and the newly adopted law. In an interview with Zawia3, Khalil stated that the movement considers political participation and engagement with elections a core principle—one that is not reconsidered without a deliberate collective decision.
He explained that the final decision regarding participation in the House and Senate elections will be made after each party leader consults their party’s executive council. However, current internal dynamics indicate a leaning toward participation—not boycott. The movement has already begun forming electoral committees within its member parties and the broader coalition and has started receiving candidate applications for both individual and list-based systems.
Khalil noted that the primary goal is to bring citizens’ voices into parliament through independent electoral lists and candidates, free from the dominance of pro-government coalitions. The movement will weigh its options based on what best serves the national interest: if participation opens the door to real representation, it will contest the elections; if not, the appropriate decision will be made after a full assessment of the situation.
He concluded by affirming that, while concerns about the electoral law and political money remain valid, the movement’s guiding compass is always the same: to act in the best interest of the Egyptian people. That, he said, requires everyone involved to take their final decision with responsibility and clarity.
