Only a few months remain before the parliamentary elections scheduled to be held in Egypt at the end of this year. Despite urgent demands from opposition parties to change the electoral law, the situation is realistically heading toward reshaping the parliament with new faces, but in the same old manner. This comes in light of the government’s continued refusal to consider any proposal for amendments and its insistence—so far—on maintaining the absolute closed-list system, which allows certain parties, all of them pro-government, to seize the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, while the opposition’s chances remain slim or even impossible in some cases.
Although the date of the elections has not yet been officially announced, the electoral map can be inferred from constitutional provisions. Egyptian law states that elections must be called two months before the end of the current parliamentary term, which ends in October. Therefore, the call for elections will take place in August, with the vote being held no later than November. Parliamentary and party sources told us that it is impossible to introduce any substantial amendment to the law at this point due to the limited timeframe—and more importantly, the government’s lack of interest in adopting a proportional list system, which would allow fair representation for opposition forces in parliament.
For its part, the government says the proposed amendments to the electoral law are still under review. In a televised statement on April 5, government spokesperson Counselor Mohamed Al-Homsani confirmed that the drafting of these proposed laws is currently being finalized in preparation for their issuance as soon as possible, in anticipation of the upcoming elections. However, sources expect the proposed law to be discussed in parliament in May, though a realistic assessment confirms this is virtually impossible due to time constraints and the imminent end of the current legislative session.
According to constitutional provisions, the term of both parliamentary chambers—House of Representatives and Senate—is five calendar years, starting from the date of their first session. New elections must be held within the sixty days preceding the end of that term. The current Senate term ends on October 17, 2025, as it first convened in October 2020, in accordance with Article 250, which was added in the 2019 constitutional amendments. The House of Representatives’ term ends on January 11, 2026, as its first session was held on January 12, 2021, according to Article 106 of the Constitution.
The current Senate consists of 300 members: two-thirds were elected by direct secret ballot—half of them through the absolute closed-list system and the other half through the individual candidacy system—while the President of the Republic appointed the remaining third. As for the House of Representatives, it consists of 596 seats: 448 elected through 143 individual districts, 120 through four closed-list districts, and 28 appointed by the President.
What Is the Current Electoral System?
Since 2015, Egypt has organized its parliamentary elections under the controversial system of the absolute closed list, which is strongly opposed by opposition parties but firmly supported by the government and pro-government parties. Under this system, the country is divided into electoral districts, each assigned a specific number of seats filled through closed party or coalition lists. Voters cast their ballot for the list as a whole—not for individual candidates within it. The list is considered “absolute” because voters cannot change the order of names or select candidates from within the list. The list that wins an absolute majority of votes (50% +1) takes all the seats in the district, with no proportional distribution to other competing lists.
The system has been applied following the ratification of Law No. 46 of 2014 concerning the House of Representatives, which allocated a portion of the seats (120 seats) to be contested through the absolute closed-list system, alongside other seats contested through individual candidacy. Pro-government parties justify this system by arguing that it guarantees representation of constitutionally designated groups—such as women, youth, Christians, persons with disabilities, and Egyptians abroad—by mandating their inclusion in the lists, thus ensuring their presence in parliament. This system continued unchanged in the 2020 elections, sparking ongoing debate about its fairness, especially since it grants all representation to the winning list and completely excludes competing lists, even if they receive significant portions of the vote.
In August 2023, the National Dialogue—a forum involving prominent public figures and political party representatives—introduced the issue of amending the electoral system for discussion. However, the lack of consensus among political forces prevented agreement on an alternative formula. Consequently, the Dialogue’s Board of Trustees submitted three electoral system proposals to President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi: maintaining the current system; shifting to a fully proportional list system across 15 electoral districts, with no fewer than 40 seats per district; or adopting a mixed system that combines the absolute closed list, proportional list, and individual candidacy in varying ratios. Despite the passage of more than a year and a half since these recommendations were submitted, no concrete steps have been taken to implement any changes—further reinforcing expectations that the current system will remain in place.
In a notable development, the House of Representatives on Wednesday issued a statement announcing its receipt of two draft bills proposing amendments to the electoral laws governing the House and the Senate, under the pretext of “developing the legal framework for the electoral process,” as the statement put it. However, a close reading reveals that the so-called “amendments” do not address the core of the current electoral system. Instead, they are limited to redrawing some individual constituencies and incorporating newly established administrative divisions—without altering the absolute closed-list system, which remains at the heart of the political deadlock.
The statement promoted these changes with language such as “ensuring fair representation of the population and governorates, taking into account demographic distribution based on the most recent statistical data, and adhering to the acceptable deviation from the parliamentary average”—phrasing that projects a technical reformist image while ignoring the real issue: the continuation of a closed electoral system.
The statement also noted: “The draft bill redistributes the seats of the absolute closed lists into four electoral districts nationwide: forty seats each for two districts, and one hundred and two seats each for the other two. This reinforces balanced parliamentary representation.” This phrasing clearly affirms the maintenance of the absolute closed-list system as it is, with no indication of genuine political reform or any effort to open space for political pluralism or party competition.
Why Does the Opposition Reject It?
Journalist and political figure Khaled Dawoud told Zawia3 that the government has not responded to any of the demands submitted by opposition parties regarding the amendment of the electoral law. He emphasized that continuing with the current law means that Egypt is heading toward a new round of elections conducted in the exact same manner as those of 2015 and 2020—with all their inherent flaws and structural problems.
Dawoud explained: “The current law is based on the absolute closed-list system, which is unjust by every measure. It grants the entire number of seats in a district to the list that secures just 50% plus one of the votes. This means that up to 49% of voters’ voices are effectively discarded, denying a large segment of the population any representation in parliament.” He added that this system also drastically reduces the chances for smaller or opposition parties to form viable electoral lists, as the law mandates four massive lists: two with 100 candidates each and two with 42, covering the entire country. “No opposition party with limited resources can manage that,” he said, adding, “In the 2015 and 2020 elections, there weren’t even real competing lists, because building such lists requires enormous capabilities that only pro-government parties possess.”
Dawoud stressed that the opposition has long been calling for the adoption of a proportional list system instead of the absolute closed list. Under a proportional system, seats are allocated according to the percentage of votes received. He explained: “If a list of ten candidates wins 60% of the vote, it gets six seats; if another list gets 40%, it receives four. This way, the voter’s will is respected, and real political pluralism is possible.”
He also addressed the shortcomings of the individual candidacy system, which accounts for half the parliamentary seats, describing it as a “traditional system that strips politics of its meaning.” He stated: “This system fuels tribal and familial loyalties and opens the door for political money. Wealthy candidates enjoy an unfair advantage in campaigning, especially in the absence of genuine oversight.”
Dawoud confirmed that the Civil Democratic Movement had proposed either a fully proportional list system or a mixed system of 50% proportional lists and 50% individual candidates. However, the government has ignored all such proposals. He added: “It’s now May—just four or five months before the elections—and time is running out. With the old law still in place, it’s clear that the intention is to reproduce the same parliament as before.”
He concluded: “The absolute closed-list system means there’s no real competition. Around half of the parliamentary seats—roughly 300—are automatically secured by pro-government party lists. These same parties also have the means to support individual candidates, meaning we’re heading toward a new parliament that will be no different from its predecessors, lacking balance, diversity, and effective oversight.”
Will the Civil Democratic Movement Boycott the Elections?
Talat Khalil, general coordinator of the Civil Democratic Movement and a member of the Presidential Council of the Conservative Party, told Zawia3 that if the lack of transparency and real guarantees for a serious and fair electoral process continues, the Civil Democratic Movement—which includes ten political parties from the opposition—will seriously consider boycotting the upcoming elections. Khalil stated: “Insisting on holding the upcoming parliamentary elections under the absolute closed-list system is a dangerous indication that there is no intention for genuine political reform,” adding: “This system does not represent real elections; it’s more like appointments disguised in a theatrical electoral scene. What we are seeing is the distribution of parliamentary seats as gifts or rewards for those favored by the authorities.”
He added that the most dangerous aspect of the absolute closed-list system is that it entirely eliminates political life and any opportunity for competition. “When all the seats are decided in favor of a single list that received just 51% of the vote, while all others are excluded, we are no longer talking about popular representation. This is a pre-arranged division of power within parliament. The system eliminates pluralism and destroys any opportunity for real political forces to participate.”
Khalil continued: “Unfortunately, we now see parliamentary seats offered as if they were commodities in a political auction—granted to those who pay more or to those who enjoy the favor of powerful circles. This deviation from the core of the democratic process threatens the legitimacy of the legislative institution and opens the door to growing public discontent.” He warned of the dangers of continued political suppression: “We are at a historical moment in which Egypt is suffering from deep economic and social imbalances. The only way out is to open the public sphere and activate political life. But if the government continues to monopolize politics and predetermine the outcome of elections, we are pushing the country into further crises.”
A Powerless Parliament and an Unclear Electoral Outlook
For his part, Dr. Mostafa Kamel El-Sayed, Professor of Political Science at Cairo University, said there are no signs or actions indicating the presence of upcoming parliamentary elections, noting that talk of elections at this point lacks any realistic basis. He told Zawia3: “So far, there have been no official announcements about the election date, and we don’t even know which law the elections will be conducted under.” He noted that this lack of transparency and information stems from the perceived insignificance of the parliament itself.
El-Sayed elaborated: “The current House of Representatives has no real value. It does not exercise meaningful oversight over the government or public finances, nor does it play a vital role in political life. All it does is pass government decisions without serious discussion.” He stressed that the government’s indifference to the election process is rooted in the belief that the outcome is already decided in advance, especially under the absolute closed-list system, which he described as not allowing any real competition.
He added: “Seats are often pre-allocated among the parties participating in the lists, which enjoy backing from certain administrative bodies. Therefore, there are no surprises in the results. If elections are held, the next parliament will not differ much from the current one.” He explained: “It is expected to be formed in the same way, without real opposition or independent figures, which strips the democratic process of any meaning.”
Khaled Dawoud agreed with this assessment of the current parliament’s weak performance, stating: “In the past five years, parliament has provided no real oversight over the government’s performance or its budgets. It did not discuss legislative proposals submitted by opposition parties, nor did it fulfill its supervisory role as it should.” He warned that “keeping the old law in place, without expanding media freedoms or releasing political prisoners, sends a negative message that the state is not interested in genuine political reform or in revitalizing party life. In such a context, even talking about elections becomes meaningless if there are no signs of real willingness for change.”
He added: “We are not asking to dominate parliament. We are asking for equal opportunities. If the opposition manages to win even 100 seats—under the best possible scenario—that would contribute to enriching parliamentary debate, bringing political vitality, and ensuring transparent legislative discussion. But if absolute control over parliament continues, then its role as a legislative and oversight body will lose all meaning.” Dawoud concluded: “It is in the state’s own interest to have a vibrant, pluralistic parliament—not one that merely echoes the government’s voice.”
Is the Exclusion of the Opposition a Political Decision?
Akram Ismail, a leading member of the Bread and Freedom Party, believes that Egypt’s current electoral system does not lead to genuine political representation, but was instead designed to appoint a parliament according to the will of the authorities—through a closed electoral law that isolates the opposition and prevents them from entering parliament. He affirms that this law does not allow any independent or opposition political bloc to break into the parliamentary scene, stating that it is, at its core, a clear political decision not to allow any organized or effective opposition under the parliamentary dome.
Ismail adds that a proportional list system could have opened the door for a range of political forces to form broad alliances and gain at least limited representation in parliament. Even small lists that won just 3–4% of the vote could have secured a few seats—legitimate ones that reflect their engagement with the public and their presentation of alternative programs. He offers the example of the Wafd Party, which, if allied with other groups like the Conservatives, could potentially win 8–9% of the vote, earning them a respectable 20–25 seats. But according to Ismail, the current authorities have entirely excluded that possibility.
He explains that the government does not want real elections that would allow citizens to feel they have political agency. Rather, it seeks to pass off a tightly controlled electoral process—one that is hardly different from direct appointments—by relying on centrally managed absolute closed lists that shut out any independent or opposition voices. He cites previous election cycles, where prearranged lists were imposed, and potential candidates were either pressured, intimidated, or pushed out of the race.
Speaking to Zawia3, Ismail stated: “This is bigger than just an electoral law. There is a definitive political will not to open the political sphere. During the sessions of the National Dialogue, there were discussions about adopting a proportional list system for 30% of the seats, and there appeared to be a slight openness toward pluralism—but all of that evaporated following regional developments, particularly the Israeli aggression on Gaza. The regime now sees its priority as absolute internal control, with no tolerance for political forces outside its domination.”
Elections Without Judicial Supervision?
Egypt’s upcoming parliamentary elections will be the first legislative vote in decades not to fall under full judicial supervision. This follows the expiration of the constitutional mandate requiring judicial oversight for ten years after the 2014 Constitution came into effect. According to Article 210, each ballot box was to be supervised by a member of the judiciary to ensure the integrity of the process. However, this requirement expired in 2024, meaning that any election held after this date will not be subject to the same direct judicial oversight.
The absence of judicial supervision has sparked widespread concern among political and legal circles. Some parties and civil society groups have expressed fears about how this may affect the transparency and credibility of the elections, especially given the limited public trust in administrative bodies’ ability to run the process impartially and without interference. Others, however, argue that effective alternatives should be established, such as empowering the National Elections Authority and expanding the scope of civil and international monitoring to ensure continued integrity. This shift represents a real institutional challenge for the Egyptian state, requiring urgent legislative remedies or even constitutional amendments should the state wish to reinstate judicial supervision in the future.
Regarding the debate over the removal of judicial oversight, Dr. Mostafa Kamel El-Sayed believes this will make little real difference. “This electoral system, in which the list that wins 51% of the votes takes all the seats in a district, strips the process of all meaning. When the country is divided into just four massive electoral districts, small parties have virtually no chance of winning,” he told Zawia3.
He added that this structure automatically ensures the victory of government-backed lists—regardless of whether judges are present or not—explaining: “Those who win are those approved by the government and state authorities. The presence or absence of judges at polling stations does not significantly alter the outcome.”
Similarly, Talat Khalil believes that this development erodes what remains of public trust in the integrity of the electoral process. “The absence of judicial supervision is a continuation of the broader trend of dismantling political life,” he said. “It raises major questions about the credibility of the elections altogether. It is unacceptable for citizens to be stripped of the one remaining safeguard they had.”
For his part, Akram Ismail believes the absence of judicial supervision is not the core of the crisis. Even in past elections held under full judicial oversight, outcomes were effectively predetermined. He points out that manipulation begins from the very moment the law is drafted, through the selection of electoral districts and pressure on the lists—not just during the counting and announcement of results. “Even the decision to move vote counting from subcommittees to central committees was about control, not transparency,” he said.
Toward a Controlled Political Scene
In light of current indicators, Egypt’s upcoming parliamentary elections appear to be heading toward a reproduction of the same political landscape—one in which political pluralism is closed off and opposition excluded through an electoral system that entrenches power monopolies and undermines the very notion of fair representation. While the government continues to cite time constraints and lack of consensus, opposition voices argue that the real barrier to electoral reform is the absence of political will.
As election day approaches, the central question remains: Will Egypt continue managing its parliamentary life with an exclusionary approach that empties parliament of its legislative and oversight functions? Or will there be one last chance to reopen the political space?
