For a country that so passionately demonstrated for the need for democratic change earlier this year, it is a wonder that less than a quarter of the eligible population opted to vote and that those who did vote brought back the most recent ?pharaoh,? as Egypt’s semi-dictatorial presidents have been called for years. The low turnout among opposition voters may point to some election fraud, as has been alleged by opposition candidates. Or, more likely, it points to a lack of faith in the process: either faith that the elections would be truly free and fair or that an opposition candidate would be able to affect any change in Egypt?s massively corrupt and inefficient government.

It seems that the Egyptian public may believe exactly what many American analysts have been saying about democratization in Egypt and the greater Middle East. Elections actually mean very little. Indeed, the states in the Middle East that provide citizens with the most freedoms and have been praised the most for reforms associated with democratic countries are all kingdoms ? Kuwait , Bahrain , Jordan , Morocco . While this may have seemed like heresy in the triumphant wake of those many purple-thumbed Iraqis proudly voting for the first time, it is an uncomfortable reality that much harder achievements like the rule of law and economic modernization are the truly vital parts of successful modern nations. In the National Review, Aaron Mannes wrote, ?Egypt’s presidential elections–the first allowing multiple candidates–can only be considered a tiny step toward reform in Egypt.? While world leaders from Israel to the United States to Germany called to congratulate Hosni Mubarak on his victory, serious Middle East analysts have seen the degree of empty pageantry involved.