The focus on Islamist successes in the first stage of the elections obscures a more nuanced reading of the vote, overlooking some notable liberal victories and the defeat of Mubarak's loyalists, writes Amira Howeidy Nine days after initial results from the first round of parliamentary elections revealed that Islamist parties had clinched 60 per cent of the vote and the hysterical reaction of the media to the results continues unabated. Pundits on evening talk shows and the writers of editorials seem determined to focus on the hypothetical -- and invariably negative -- consequences of an Islamist majority rather than discuss what led to the outcome, and what it might mean. Voter turnout in the first stage of the poll was 52 per cent. Not only is this probably the highest in Egypt's modern history, voters headed to the polling booths in the aftermath of violent clashes between protesters and state security forces in Tahrir Square that left 40 people dead and more than 3,000 injured. Indeed, protesters are continuing with their sit in, though the numbers are far fewer than the thousands who had flocked to the square at the height of the clashes. At one point the flare up had escalated to the point where the overthrow of Egypt's de facto rulers, the military, seemed likely and the idea of parliamentary elections being held within days looked increasingly tenuous. Yet millions of Egyptians in nine governorates did go to the polls, braving a cold November morning and a climate of fear and confusion as they ignored calls for a boycott. On 28 November some queued for seven hours. The crowds that thronged to voting stations were not only unprecedented, but unexpected given the fluid and volatile situation of the previous days. The mood had shifted from one of horror and anger in Tahrir to something very different, involving approximately nine million people, the vast majority of whom had never cast a ballot in their lives. The mood of the media changed too. Faced with such a high turnout, and the absence of the chaos so confidently predicted by talk show pundits, ordinary Egyptians were hailed as heroes, impressing the world with heir readiness for democracy. Two days later and the ever fickle media mood changed again. As the results began to sink in TV talk shows shifted from lauding voters to berating them for voting for the Islamists. Few paid attention to the historic defeat of Hosni Mubarak's " fulul " -- the loyalist remnants that had contested the elections. It's difficult to understand why the pundits should have been so wrong footed by the success of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party. The Brotherhood, after all, is an 83-year-old group which enjoys remarkable organisational skills applauded even by their staunchest enemies. In the face of decades of systematic oppression it maintained its structures and successfully managed to offer social services through its nationwide network, filling in as the state increasingly failed to deliver. Even as a banned group the Brotherhood won 88 seats in the 2005 legislative elections, 20 per cent of the total. The other opposition parties managed only five per cent between them. "The surprised reactions to the Islamists' success are themselves surprising," Ayman El-Sayyad, editor of the cultural monthly Weghat Nazar (Points of View) said. While there are considerable differences between the Brotherhood and the Salafis -- the latter are influenced by the Saudi Wahabi, ultra-orthodox and literal understanding of Islamic Sharia, have no political history and largely oppose democracy -- El-Sayyad believes that most voters consider both groups "religious people" and weren't necessarily distinguishing between them. Hence the 60 per cent win of the first round. In run-off elections for 52 seats on Monday and Tuesday the FJP won 34, which raised their total vote in the first stage of the elections to 40 per cent. The Salafis remained hovering around 23 per cent. El-Sayyad believes the "real surprise" in the elections so far is the secularist Egyptian Bloc, Al-Kotla Al-Masriya, which emerged in third position, winning around 13 per cent of the vote, almost double the liberal Wafd Party. Al-Kotla comprises three parties: the Free Egyptians, formed by business tycoon Naguib Sawiris, the Social Democratic Party founded by liberal activists and the left-wing Tagammu Party. Tagammu was established in 1977 but the other two parties are only a few months old. That they are such newcomers did not prevent them scoring notable successes, securing seats for candidates who topped their lists, including prominent economic expert Ziad Bahaaeddin, Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies Israel expert Emad Gad and political activist and member of Mohamed El-Baradei's presidential campaign Ziad El-Elimi. Amr Hamzawy, a liberal politician won his seat with a landslide victory against FJP candidate Mohamed Saad in east Cairo's upper middle class Heliopolis district. Hamzawy was part of The Revolution Continues coalition, which comprises several mainstream and socialist parties and groups. It scored a modest 3.4 per cent of the total vote, which seems to reflect public sentiments towards "revolution" activists. Yet Mustafa El-Naggar, 31, of the Adl Party and a "revolutionary youth" figure defeated his Salafi opponent in the run-offs, so did ex- judge Mahmoud El-Khodeiri, who defeated business tycoon Tarek Talaat Mustafa in Alexandria. Salafi leader Abdel-Moneim El-Shahat, who has been much quoted saying he is against democracy, was defeated by the Brotherhood- backed independent Hosni Doweidar, also in Alexandria. In the first round, secular or non-Islamist candidates secured 34.1 per cent of seats, outscoring the Salafi's 23 per cent. Although it is still too early to speculate on the final shape of parliament -- the third and final stage of voting will be on 3 January 2012 -- most observes believe the FJP will form a coalition with the liberal bloc. This was partially supported by the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie who on Monday told El-Mehwar TV station that the group has been "in alliance with the liberals". Quite what this implies in practice remains to be seen. What the preliminary results do seem to reflect is the polarisation that dominates the political climate. Diaa Rashwan, director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, argues that a heavy protest vote took place. Those who voted for the Islamists were making a statement against Al-Kotla "which was also backed by the Church", thus influencing voting calculations. Similarly, he says, the bulk of votes that went to Al-Kotla was against the Islamist stream, "not based on the political platform of the parties". Since polarisation continues unabated, voting based on identity rather than platforms -- which no one is discussing -- is likely to dominate the second stage that takes place on 14 December.
