Talk:Politics of Egypt

message: how should we add stuff about recent constitution ammendment? I need help with the outline
:Well, it shouldnt be very difficult to compare the situation as it was (single-candidate referendum), with the new Article 76. However, it is important to cover the practical aspects of both versions of the article; ie, the process by which a new president was/is elected in each case. The NDP is very conniving about it, having tailored the article to make it excessively difficult for the muslim brotherhood (their only real viable competitor) to nominate a presidential candidate. Bassemkhalifa 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Amendment 

message: Someone should add information on the 2005 parliamentary elections. There's much to talk about: rigging of all sorts; violence; wide-scale vote-buying; the MB and its success; the failures of the secular opposition; the failure of the opposition to form a so-called "unified front"; the embarassingly poor performance of NDP candidates despite everything beaing geared to their advantage; the NDP's going back on its word to not readmit NDP candidates who, having not been picked on official lists, decided to run independently; Bassemkhalifa 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliamentary Elections 

message: I think this should be reorganized.
There is a section that talks about parliamentary elections in general and then one that talks about parties and parliamentary elections. How about following sections: 
1. Parliament - (general stuff like election system, power, etc..); 
2. Parties; 
3. Parliamentary Elections. Bassemkhalifa 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliamentary Elections vs Parties 

message: "Despite a constitutional ban against religious-based parties, the technically illegal Muslim Brotherhood constitutes Mubarak's potentially most significant political opposition..."
A constitutional ban against religious-based parties? Technically illegal party??? Ladies and gents...this is simply not true. I went through all the articles of the Egyptian Constitution (both Arabic & English, just to ensure congruency between the translation), and have found no such clauses that prevent religious-based parties or any other parties...so my question is: what makes the Muslim Brotherhood an "illegal" party? Nothing that I am aware of...and if this is the case, I propose removing this section or editing it to reflect this fact. --Jamal 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political pressure groups & leaders 

message: The article seems to have some serious NPOV problems.  Specifically, when it speaks of the multi-candidate presidential polls, it says the "new law placed draconian restrictions on the filing for presidential candidacies, designed to prevent well-known candidates such as Ayman Nour from standing against Mubarak, and paved the road for his easy re-election victory."  While I am not particularly disputing this, perhaps instead of labelling the restrictions "draconian", there should be a description of what the restrictions are so the readers can come to their own decision as to whether or not they are draconian.  At the very least, some references should be cited for this.
Also, there seems to be some weasel wording when it says "most Egyptians are skeptical about the process of democratisation and the role of the elections" - perhaps this is true, but it's easy to say and lacks any sort of substantiation.
As I said, I'm not debating the merits of the changes, just the description of them and their effect on the people.  Sweeping statements need backup, and strong adjectives like "draconian" should be left to the reader to insert.  Kurt 07:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly lacking NPOV - draconian restrictions - what are they? 

message: Hi, just poking in this page if you don't mind. I was just wondering why in the "Background" of the article doesn't have the first Egyptian Preident,Muhammad Naguib. I think it would be important for this section.--65.54.154.153 21:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does now have Muhammad Naguib listed in the Background section. A Note about the background section: It took me a couple of reads to get the order of Presidents correct. It jumps around a bit, from the first President, it jumps to the fourth. It states that Mr. Murarak is the current President (since 1981), but then it states that Dr. Ebeid was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2004. Does Egypt have two governments, or is this a mistake? 65.93.87.241 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The PM is not the same as the President. This is not peculiar to Egypt. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_system 94.192.144.202 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first President? 

message: What's the deal with that?
:Would you mind being more specific? Donnyj (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascinating? 

message: "Mubarak tolerated limited political activity by the Brotherhood for his first two terms, but has moved more aggressively in the past six years to block its influence (arguably leading to its recent rise in public support)."
Whoever wrote this, are you saying that most Egyptians don't like the Brotherhood and therefore were grateful when Mubarak cracked down on them?  Or that Mubarak had to whistle up some public support (fudge the polls, intimidate people into support, all the old tricks)?  What's the relationship between the crackdown and an increase in public support? 213.181.226.21 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line about Mubarak's crackdowns 

message: u should think how kosovan people been discriminate and killed for years and years, and get more information about kosovo after make desicion, i hope that soon egypt government will recognise kosovo as a state.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.26.171 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  shame for government of egypt that dont recognise kosovo as  state yet. 

message: The article says "Parliament meets for one eighth-month session each year" Does this mean that they only meet for one month (the 8th) or that they meet for eight months?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative session length 

message: There's no longer an Egyptiam parliament. A new one will most likely be elected later this yearEricl (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the revolution changes everything 

message: Legislative Branch/The People’s Assembly (Maglis El-Shaab)/
"The first round of new elections is scheduled to start on November 28, 2011, the second round would be held on December 14, the third on January 3 and the new assembly would convene on March 17.[12] Nomination for the elections will start on October 12. 70% of the 498 parliamentary seats will be based on the party list system and the remaining 30% through individual-candidate voting, according to official news agency MENA"
This information should be updated, or at least removed until the up-to-date information is produced.
" "Egypt will be divided into 60 constituencies in accordance to the decree, 30 for the party lists system in which each list must include at least a woman candidate while the other 30 for the individual-candidate system in which the candidate shouldn't be affiliated to any political party."[13] The reservation of 30 seats simple majority seats for independent candidates is controversial.[12]"
This reads like news, even the part after the quote. It also is now irrelevant because this needs updating.
"Post-revolutionary, \ccclfa
Again, more info to be updated.
I am sorry to pick at the flaws instead of trying to correct them, but I do not know the updated information, and would rather leave it to a more knowledgeable person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.107.81.243 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections that state futuristic events with past dates 

message: I've been trying to find information about this, but to no avail. Since the talk pages of the more detailed articles are empty, I'm asking my question here: regarding the announced referendum on the new draft constitution, how many percent would count as "passed"? Majority, plurality, 2/3? And of the entire electorate, or only the votes cast? Is there a minimum turnout necessary? Is there any information out there? And should it be in here? -- megA (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution referendum: How many percent of what count as "passed" 

message: The introduction mentions that the Parliament is unicameral and "unbiased". I think that is probably the wrong word and quite possibly inaccurate. It also comes across as a political opinion and raises the question: unbiased/biased against whom? Ultranix (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbiased?