Elections without ballot boxes and without voters in Egypt and Syria

Simultaneous elections were held in Syria, where there is no place to put the ballot boxes, and in Egypt, where the voter could not be found anywhere.

In Syria, under civil war conditions, it was of course not possible to place ballot boxes across the whole country. The places where ballot boxes could be set up are entirely under Assad's control, places where those who went to the ballot box probably cast open votes while displaying their loyalty to Assad. That is, a form of election in which there is no need for a ballot box at all.

In Egypt, the election process, which had been announced as two days, was extended to a third day because the voters showed no interest at all, even though ballot boxes had been set up across the whole country. As might be expected, the turnout rate, which appeared to be even below ten percent at the end of two days, was brought on the third day, with the open intervention of soldiers, police and other support units, to a ratio that would save appearances. Although all indicators showed the turnout to be extremely low, at the end of three days the turnout rate was announced as 47 percent.

It is very clear that two elections, one held without ballot boxes and the other without voters, are making fools of some people, but whom? Of course, whoever swallows it.

As far as can be seen, the EU and America have already shown that they are ready to swallow this fool's dish by promptly finding it in line with democratic norms.

Mario David, head of the delegation that took part in the elections as observer on behalf of the EU, said at a press conference he held in the capital Cairo, for example: "According to the delegation's report, the election passed in an environment in conformity with the law and in a calm atmosphere. However, some situations that did not meet constitutional principles occurred." Everyone saw anyway that it passed very calmly. Not even a voter was to be found at the ballot boxes.

David also said in the continuation of his words: "Many citizens could not vote because they had no identification. We observed a 47 percent turnout. The vote counting process was orderly, all ballot boxes were opened on time and properly."

Are these the findings that someone who observed an election on behalf of the EU should have recorded about this election? Does the election's having passed calmly now show that it was successful? Now, if we asked that this same David be sent to observe our Gezi events and the democratization process in Turkey, would we be asking too much? Why, indeed, do they not set our progress reports to such people, and instead send those detectives who announce to the world as journalists people who are under arrest or convicted of murder and rape?

There is an election extended to a third day because of the extreme indifference of the people; does it not give any answer to the questions that might occur to a person about the reason for or the consequences of this extension?

Meanwhile, if there is no second option, if the option that appears to exist is merely a decor, how can what is done be called an election, for example? In response to these questions, David did not neglect to add that extending the voting process by one more day, after two days with extremely low turnout, was not contrary to the laws and did not affect the elections. If it was not going to affect the election results, why was it extended to a third day, then?

There are those who make fools of the world, but there are also the cunning who play the fool.

In the end, one way or another, in keeping with the unchanging norms of this geography, they have thus found a way to balance the election results at above 95 percent.

As can be expected, the EU, the US and the other Arab countries will swallow this fool's dish, the election results, by playing the fool. But it will not be a dish eaten with relish. It will be a poisonous dish that sits heavy in the stomach. Because this is an election with no people in it, no voters. The Egyptian people continued in this election, too, the noble stance they have shown since the days of the coup. By boycotting the election at the level of ninety percent, they once again cried out that they do not approve of this course.

Never mind that this voice is being sought to be suppressed through cunning intrigues. The most important thing that those who make fools of everyone overlook is the cost to themselves of the foolishness they display in this way.

In the end, they have no greater enemy than their own foolishness.