A hollow show of democracy

There are referendums and referendums. One sort is a genuinely democratic and risky exercise in consulting the people, such as will take place in France on Sunday and in the Netherlands three days later. The other is little more than a cynical exercise in rubber-stamping, designed to give the impression of a democratic process where, in fact, there is none. The referendum that was held in Egypt yesterday was far closer to the second sort than the first.

There are referendums and referendums. One sort is a genuinely democratic and risky exercise in consulting the people, such as will take place in France on Sunday and in the Netherlands three days later. The other is little more than a cynical exercise in rubber-stamping, designed to give the impression of a democratic process where, in fact, there is none. The referendum that was held in Egypt yesterday was far closer to the second sort than the first.

The stated purpose of this referendum was to ratify a constitutional amendment that would permit the direct election of the president. The change would also provide for more than one candidate to stand. While apparently radical, however, the proposed changes are so hedged about with restrictions as to render them ineffectual - at least until such time as the the ruling National Democratic Party loses its current dominance or the electoral process is freer and fairer than at present.

Two opposition groups - the banned Muslim Brotherhood and the more recently formed Kifaya movement - called for a boycott of the voting on the grounds that the proposed amendment was meaningless. The response of the authorities - who broke up demonstrations, arrested more than 800 protesters and brought in busloads of supporters for counter-demonstrations - was hardly an auspicious start to a new era of democratic progress.

When President Mubarak first announced earlier this year that Egyptian voters would have a choice of candidates in the next presidential elections, this was widely hailed as a harbinger of change. It came following the elections in Iraq and after peaceful demonstrations in Lebanon had forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops. Washington claimed then that its intervention in Iraq had precipitated democratisation across the region.

Those boasts were short-lived. And now that Mr Mubarak has shown what he is actually planning, the changes in Egypt look superficial indeed. It is hard to escape the impression that, with strong US encouragement, he wants to give his regime a less autocratic appearance, while trying also to fend off growing grass-roots pressure for reform.

This referendum need not be entirely deplored. Voting is better, on balance, than no voting, and a referendum, even if only part of a consultation process, is better than none. It is possible that, some time in the future, the constitutional amendment could foster further change that paves the way for genuine multi-party, multi-candidate elections. The mistake would be to embrace yesterday's vote as proof that democracy is breaking out in Egypt; it is not - at least, not yet.