The only thing “historic” – as some are insisting on calling it – about today’s presidential election in Egypt is that it might finally herald the end of misguided American policy toward Egypt. The official “historic” news is that other names will appear alongside that of dictator Hosni Mubarak on the ballot for the first time in Egyptian history. Previous “elections” consisted of referendums with only Mr. Mubarak’s name.

This would be “historic” if today’s election were anything other than a farce. Those allowed to “challenge” Mr. Mubarak had to be approved by the regime. Campaigning was limited to a three-week period with the state-controlled press and broadcast outlets giving Mr. Mubarak the vast majority of coverage. Independent election observers have been banned from monitoring the election – guaranteeing a Mubarak victory irrespective of whichever name Egyptians tick in the booth. Those parroting the official Egyptian “historic” line point out that opposition rallies and advertisements were allowed for the first time, and that Mr. Mubarak actually went out stumping for votes. All their parroting shows is they’ve been successfully duped by Mr. Mubarak’s publicity machine. At best these “reforms” upgrade the election from “complete farce” to “almost complete farce.”

Secretary Rice gave a powerful speech at Cairo in June declaring that the Bush administration realized the failure of past American policy in the Middle East: That supporting autocratic rulers offering stability ahead of democracy was a mistake. September 11, 2001, brought home that dictatorial allies were often the breeding grounds for the Islamist terrorists they were supposed to repressing. Mr. Mubarak is one such autocratic ruler. He has ruled Egypt since the assassination of Anwar Sadat with almost as much power as the ancient pharaohs. He has a loyal military, a rubber-stamping parliament, control of the press and airwaves, and a constitution overridden by “state of emergency” laws that limit free speech and other basic freedoms. It came as little surprise that a leader of the September 11, 2001, hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was Egyptian. Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also Egyptian.

The Bush administration tried before the election to push Mr. Mubarak toward democracy by asking him to lift the emergency laws and to allow independent election monitors. He refused on both accounts. Aside from its undemocratic and repressive features, the Mubarak regime is also anti-Semitic and anti-American. The Washington Post has acted as chief antagonist to the Egyptian government for these flaws. Egypt’s state controlled television, for example, has carried a 41-part series based on the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” America has been accused of spreading AIDS in Africa. A state-controlled newspaper article has praised suicide bombers. And so on.

America does have muscle to flex to pressure Mr. Mubarak to reform – without having to send in the 82nd Airborne. Egypt is given approximately $2 billion in annual aid by America – it’s received more than $50 billion since Mr. Mubarak took the throne. This money could be withheld until democratic reforms are introduced. Or, better still, the money can instead be channeled to the regime’s democrat opponents. Unless this happens the 76-year-old Mr. Mubarak will succeed in soon passing control to his son Gamal and the line of pharaohs will continue.