When a list of 15 candidates wins unanimously and by acclamation, it is astonishing and it casts doubt on the election law and the electoral process as a whole.
And it is equally astonishing when whole lists of candidates withdraw from the competition because they cannot abide by the complicated rules or they do not have enough money to pay for the required medical examination, which costs over a million pounds.
Six out of 15 lists were rejected for minor procedural errors like forgetting to sign a paper or failing to submit a birth certificate. Had there been an efficient administrative body, the candidates simply would have been asked to complete their applications without the risk of being excluded from the process altogether.
This situation gave birth to lists that are likely to win by acclamation, not just because certain state agencies support them or because the political parties are weak, but because of faults in the distribution of constituencies and the electoral system itself. Add to it that the alternative proposal to allocate to each governorate one-third of the seats for list-based runners and two-thirds for individual runners was ignored. This proposal gives the opportunity for more than 20 lists to compete rather than just four, and allows for a fair representation of society's political and social diversity.
This situation made it difficult for political parties and forces to form lists and opened the door to interventions by state institutions, for lists without competition is the worst that can happen to the electoral process.
