Weeks before the parliamentary elections in Egypt, which will begin with the Senate election (the second chamber of Parliament) scheduled for August, heated discussions are taking place behind the scenes. Wealthy individuals and influential figures are racing to secure a spot at the top of the “National List for Egypt” (a guaranteed win list), as described by politicians. This list includes 13 political parties, most of which are pro-government, led by the “Mostakbal Watan” party, along with a few opposition parties such as “Al-Wafd,” “Al-Masry Al-Democrati,” “Al-Adl,” and “Al-Tajammu.”
Political money has never been absent from most electoral processes in Egypt over the past four decades, but the new development since 2015 is the emergence of another form of using money in exchange for a parliamentary seat. This involves paying a fee to the state in advance to run in a closed list, which will certainly win, comprising all pro-government parties and a limited number of familiar opposition figures, as described by politicians. This list enjoys unparalleled security, political, and media support, and candidates often present themselves as “state candidates.”
Ten years ago, many reports mentioned that large sums, reaching up to 10 million Egyptian pounds ($200,000), were paid in exchange for a seat in a certain electoral district, or even to get support or a “green light” to run for individual seats. Today, in light of the arrangements being made for the Senate elections and then the parliamentary elections, Zawia3 has contacted dozens of current and former candidates, as well as politicians and election preparers. They all agreed on the growing dominance of political money, whether it is paid to authorities to push certain candidates forward, or what is spent later on campaigning or electoral bribes.
Human rights organizations in Egypt, such as the “Freedom of Thought and Expression Foundation” and the “Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights,” have documented this phenomenon in multiple reports. One of the most notable reports, published in 2020, indicated a “widespread breach of the electoral spending ceiling by candidates, who spent large amounts on television and radio advertisements, organizing mass rallies, and distributing food and financial goods in impoverished constituencies.” Election monitoring missions, such as the Egyptian Election Monitoring Coalition and the Election Integrity Observatory, also recorded repeated violations in the 2015 and 2020 elections, with weak accountability mechanisms, despite the existence of legal provisions that criminalize vote-buying. It is noteworthy that the Political Rights Act sets limits on electoral spending, but the lack of effective oversight has contributed to political money becoming a decisive tool for winning, especially in the individual system, which depends on narrow districts where financial and social influence can be easily exerted.
Observers note that political money is deeply rooted in the history of parliamentary elections in Egypt. It has been used as a primary means to influence voters, especially with the decline of party roles and the weak political culture among large segments of the population. Since the People’s Assembly elections during the era of former President Hosni Mubarak, repeated accusations have been leveled against candidates using money to mobilize votes by purchasing loyalty or offering direct services.
Don’t miss: The Next Parliament in Egypt… Pre-Allocated Seats
What Happens Behind the Scenes?
Based on matching statements obtained by Zawia3 from insider party sources who participated in consultations for shaping electoral lists and coordinating individual districts, the sources revealed that “participating in the parliamentary lists now requires massive financial contributions to be paid to the ‘Tahya Misr Fund’.” They indicated that a candidate in the Senate list pays around 30 million Egyptian pounds ($600,000), while the value rises to 70 million Egyptian pounds ($1.4 million) for a candidate in the House of Representatives list, with appointees paying around 50 million Egyptian pounds ($1 million).
The sources state that the distribution within the lists is not based solely on merit but is rather agreed upon based on financial contributions and the number of seats that need to be passed. They explained: “If there is a need for six deputies, for example, they are not all placed in one list; they are distributed across three lists to ensure their success.” This is carefully coordinated to ensure that each list includes between 2 to 3 candidates supportive of the government, to present the image of having a variety of both opposition and pro-government figures.
Regarding individual elections, the sources revealed that the first phase is marked by significant chaos due to the lack of coordination between candidates. They pointed out that each candidate acts separately, relying on their representatives who stand outside the polling stations and distribute money for votes. One of the sources, who previously supervised some polling stations in past elections, explained: “A citizen goes to the station, gives their vote in exchange for 100 pounds ($2), then returns to the candidate’s representative to confirm they voted. The representative then gives them a coupon to receive a box of food and an additional amount of money.”
Another source clarified that some candidates later agree in the run-off round to share the costs. For example, in some villages, two deputies agree to distribute the money equally, with each representative standing in front of the station, monitoring who voted for whom, and distributing gifts accordingly. In some cases, the cost of a vote reaches up to 250 pounds ($5), including the cash amount and the box. “These operations are coordinated by specific people responsible for every four polling stations.”
The sources agreed that these practices are not new and have been repeated in previous rounds, noting that “in the previous election, votes were bought the same way, albeit at lower prices.” They clarified, “In the previous round, the cost of a list was only 22 million pounds ($440,000), and appointments cost 15 million pounds ($300,000).” However, it has increased significantly in this round, citing the case of a former deputy who passed away. “He used to distribute large quantities of food and money, but barely received 200 votes in the best districts because he wasn’t supported by certain parties.”
Our sources confirm that: “These practices are widely known by all involved and are practiced extensively across the country, relying on exploiting the poor through food boxes and 100 pounds ($2).” They pointed out that “a large number of candidates allocate millions to distribute as aid in villages and centers, based on financial alliances rather than political ones.”
The upcoming parliamentary elections in Egypt will be the first legislative election not subject to full judicial oversight for decades. This is due to the expiration of the constitutional deadline that required judicial oversight for elections for only ten years after the 2014 constitution came into effect. According to Article 210 of the constitution, it was stipulated that a member of the judiciary oversee every ballot box to ensure the integrity of the process. However, this article set a time limit for this oversight, which expires in 2024. This means that any elections held after this date will not be subject to this type of direct judicial monitoring, which, according to observers, enhances the chances for the use of political money and other violations.
Since 2015, Egypt has organized parliamentary elections according to the controversial “closed absolute list” system, which is strongly rejected by opposition parties but insisted upon by the government and pro-government parties. Under this law, the country is divided into electoral districts, each allocated a specific number of seats filled by closed party or coalition lists, so that voters cast their votes for the entire list and not for individual candidates within it. The list is considered “absolute closed” because voters cannot change the order of names within the list or select candidates from it. Winning occurs when the list receives the absolute majority of votes (50% +1), securing all the seats in the district, without proportional distribution to other competing lists.
This system was implemented after the enactment of Law No. 46 of 2014 on the House of Representatives, which allocated part of the seats (120 seats) to the closed absolute list system, in addition to other seats contested individually. Pro-government parties justify the reliance on this system to ensure representation of certain groups constitutionally defined, such as women, youth, Christians, people with disabilities, and Egyptians abroad, by mandatorily including them in the lists, ensuring their presence in Parliament. This system continued in the 2020 elections with the same mechanism, amidst debates about whether it achieves fair representation, especially since it gives the absolute advantage to the winning list and denies competing lists any seats, even if they received a high percentage of votes.
Human rights organizations in Egypt, such as the Freedom of Thought and Expression Foundation and the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights, have documented this phenomenon in multiple reports. One of the most notable reports, published in 2020, indicated that “electoral spending ceilings were widely exceeded by candidates, spending large sums on television and radio advertisements, organizing mass rallies, and distributing food and financial goods in poor districts.” Election monitoring missions, such as the Egyptian Election Monitoring Coalition and the Election Integrity Observatory, also recorded these violations in the 2015 and 2020 elections, with weak accountability mechanisms, despite legal provisions that criminalize vote-buying. It is worth mentioning that the Political Rights Act sets limits on electoral spending, but the lack of effective oversight has contributed to political money becoming a decisive tool for winning, especially in the individual system, which relies on narrow districts where financial and social influence can be easily exerted.
Senate Elections: A Single List and Political Apathy
In the upcoming Senate elections, scheduled for next month, the “National List for Egypt” will run alone, with no competing lists in the four districts allocated for the closed list system, according to an announcement made by Egypt’s National Election Authority last Thursday. This coincided with the closing of the nomination period for the Senate elections after six days of receiving candidates’ applications for both the closed list and individual systems.
As for the individual seats, totaling 100, the parties of “Mostaqbal Watan,” “Hamasat Watan,” and the “National Front” collectively put forward more than 40 candidates. The “Republican People’s Party” submitted 21 candidates, while the “Egyptian Social Democratic Party” notably presented 35 candidates. The “Erdah Geel” Party entered the competition with 33 candidates, the “Union Party” with 30 candidates, the “Liberals” with 28, and “Al-Tajammu” with 27 candidates. The “Al-Jeel” Party participated with 25 candidates, “Al-Hurriya” with 24, the “Justice Party” with 19, the “Nasserite Arab” with 18, the “Conference Party” with 17, “New Independents” with 15, “Al-Nour Salafi” with 12, and the “Conscious Party” with 11 candidates, while the “Wafd Party” submitted only 10 candidates.
In contrast, the Democratic Civil Movement, a coalition of several liberal and leftist parties, announced its full boycott of the Senate elections, protesting what it described as the lack of guarantees for integrity, especially after the cancellation of full judicial oversight of the voting process. The movement also criticized the adoption of the absolute closed list system, which it claimed wastes nearly 49% of voters’ voices and allows one entity to monopolize all seats if it wins (50% +1) of the votes. The movement considered this an entrenchment of political exclusion and a closing of the public space.
The constitution mandates that the elections for both the Senate and the House of Representatives be held within sixty days before the expiration of each chamber’s term. Based on this framework, the Senate elections are scheduled to take place in August, followed by the House of Representatives elections in November. The Senate consists of 300 members, one-third of whom are elected via the closed list system, another third through individual elections, while the remaining third is appointed by the President. The law requires that no less than 10% of the seats be allocated to women.
Don’t miss: Entitlement Without Impact: Egypt’s Senate Elections Approach Amid General Silence
Laws Preventing Opposition
For his part, Talaat Khalil, coordinator of the Civil Movement and member of the Presidential Council of the Conservative Party, says that the scene of political money in the upcoming parliamentary elections has become a recurring and escalating issue, amid a clear absence of effective oversight. He points out that election spending has exceeded acceptable limits, whether through payments to run on the closed lists or through exaggerated campaigning, including vote-buying as well.
Khalil explains in statements to Zawia3 Platform that political money has become strongly present in the electoral scene, especially during recent electoral events, with large sums of money being distributed amid a severe decline in oversight and transparency. He adds that running on what is known as the “absolute closed lists” adopted by the so-called National Parties Alliance has become akin to an appointment process where some pay enormous sums to secure a parliamentary seat.
The coordinator of the Civil Movement further notes that the elections for individual seats also witness similar practices, explaining that the constituencies have become wide and extremely expensive, which has pushed some candidates to focus on vote-buying, especially given the popular apathy toward political participation. He continues, saying: “The citizen has completely lost confidence in the electoral process and legislative institutions, which has made the prevailing behavior the use of incentives like food baskets or money to move the poor.”
Khalil stresses that these practices are run through organized networks of brokers and individual suppliers, who exploit the poverty of citizens, including beneficiaries of the “Takaful and Karama” pension program, expressing regret that this government assistance is being used as a pressure tool to force the poor to vote. He also points out that some employees are directly pressured by their institutions to participate in the elections, reflecting a complete departure from the parliamentary frameworks Egypt has known for over 160 years. He affirms that what we are witnessing today is unworthy of Egypt’s parliamentary history and does not reflect any form of a healthy political life.
Regarding the Civil Movement’s position on the upcoming elections, Khalil says the movement did not participate in the Senate elections due to the high cost and the ambiguity of the situation. He confirms that it is the Egyptian people who have actually boycotted, rejecting participation in an electoral process “based on frustrating laws,” as he put it.
He added, “These laws not only prevent voting but also prevent running for office, completely closing the door to any opportunity for serious competition. The existing constituency divisions, which have confined the country to only four districts through absolute closed lists, are flawed and alienate any serious candidate.” When asked about the Civil Movement’s stance on the upcoming House of Representatives elections, Khalil points out that the movement’s position has not yet been decided, but it is under consideration. He emphasizes that all indications point to the continuation of the same issues that led to the boycott of previous electoral events.
Don’t miss: Opposition Rejects Egypt’s New Electoral Law
Deliberate Erasure of Citizens’ Will
Akram Ismail, a leader of the “Bread and Freedom Party,” states that the upcoming parliamentary elections are being held within a closed, tightly controlled framework that entirely excludes the will of the voters. He adds that there is a deliberate suppression of the people’s will and awareness, while a pre-scripted political scene is being re-established. In an exclusive interview with Zawia3, Ismail explained that “the entire electoral process is now subjected to precise security arrangements, where those who enter parliament and those who are excluded are controlled, with no candidate passing through except through a gate controlled by state authorities.”
Furthermore, Ismail emphasizes that “political money has ceased to be just a tool for influence; it has become one of the core foundations of the electoral process.” He elaborates that “the more real popular presence shrinks, the higher the cost of buying votes, and the greater the reliance on electoral bribes and the distribution of aid in exchange for participation.” He indicates that “the absence of popular participation opens the door to cementing a model based on mobilization for money, not conviction or political programs.”
Regarding the electoral lists, Ismail explained that “parliamentary seats are being offered in the political market, and those who have money can secure their position.” He adds, “The pro-government parties themselves have adopted the logic of financing, and those who have greater financial capacity can secure a spot on the list, whether from inside or outside the party.” He further noted that “the authorities managing the scene are redistributing the seats according to power balances that have been predetermined, and these balances are controlled by capital and security loyalty, not the will of the voters.”
As for the individual seats, Ismail believes that “the scene is clearer.” In light of the widespread apathy toward voting, a small number of voters are summoned through a system based on direct payments, either in the form of cash or food assistance, in exchange for going to the polls and voting for a specific candidate. He points out that “there are citizens who don’t even know there are elections, and they are simply mobilized because a certain entity has decided to pay money for their votes.” He adds that “voting here does not reflect political will, but rather a pre-arranged equation based on financial compensation.”
The leader of the Bread and Freedom Party also mentions that “the high cost of candidacy reflects the extent of collusion between money and politics,” revealing that a seat on the parliamentary list costs nearly 70 million Egyptian pounds. He says: “I tried to raise this amount through personal contributions, but I was only able to gather 2,000 pounds, reflecting the total exclusion of anyone without money from running and competing.”
He affirms that the upcoming parliament “will not reflect true societal or political balances, but rather will be the result of a clear political decision aimed at suppressing citizens’ will in forming governing institutions.” He adds that “this direction has been accepted and agreed upon by the ruling elite, based on a firm conviction that Egypt should not hold elections where the majority can express itself, and whenever this happens, as in some professional syndicates, the system considers it an undesirable exception.”
