Problems on hold
Managing the political process
Frustration has set in. In the
The top political executives in our country—whether in
the government or the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP)—should have sensed
the frustration and fury, and should have possessed the vision to manage the
crisis adequately. Instead, these executives have obviously opted to play for
time, with the objective of maintaining the political status quo till next
autumn when presidential and parliamentary elections are due. This effectively
postpones any debate on political reform until after the elections,
or—better still—indefinitely. They are trying to sell the Egyptian
street on the idea that stability is better than change, and that consequently,
political immobility is far more important than political reform.
These government and NDP executives did not take the
trouble to gain public support for their stance. They did not even bother to
‘beautify’ the situation in any attempt to draw citizens to the polls. They
held no public gatherings, seminars or suchlike to harness public opinion in favour of their call for abandoning reform in favour of political stability. Instead, Mr
Safwat al-Sharif,
secretary-general of the NDP and speaker of the ++Shura++ or Consultative
Council—the upper chamber of the Egyptian Parliament—announced that the new
president will be “named” by Parliament next May. Kindly note that Mr Sharif substituted “named” for
“nominated”. In September Mr Sharif
said, a public referendum will be held to decide on the presidential candidate
named by Parliament. Mr Kamal
al-Shazli, deputy to the secretary-general of the
NDP, said that, once the outcome of the referendum is announced, President Hosni Mubarak will be sworn in
for a new term.
The entire issue of the new president appears then to
have already been decided and the people duly ‘informed’. This despite the fact
that President Mubarak himself has said that anyone
who aspired to the post of president may nominate himself or herself—as
stipulated by the Constitution—once he or she has gained the support of
two-thirds of the Parliament members, and the referendum would be subsequently
held. The president thus kept the door half-open—on the democratic and
constitutional levels—and may have so managed to secure public interest and
participation in the process of choosing a president for a new term.
Contrariwise, the secretary-general of the NDP and his deputy slammed this door
shut when they confirmed that the process was already pre-defined and its
result predestined.
It is quite obvious that political vision is entirely
lacking where the process of renewing the term of the current authority is
concerned. In fact, the process is being managed in a manner which enrages the
mainstream public as well as the cultural elite. In which case the bitter
questions arise: why do we call upon Egyptians to go to the polls? Why do we
ask them to shoulder their responsibility in running their country? How can
young people ever believe that their votes count, or that they should adopt a
culture of critical thinking and free choice?
It is neither our wish nor our intention to gamble
with the future of our country. We thus do not aspire to any democratic change
without the prerequisite adequate political groundwork. Until this materialises, we have nothing against the fact that most
Egyptians love President Mubarak and prefer him to
any newcomer. Even so, we must admit that this emphasises
the vacancy of the political arena of any new faces or agendas, which in turn prioritises the necessity of political reform and
pluralism.