 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 May 1999 Issue No. 430 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 May 1999 Issue No. 430
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Supplement Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Discussing democracy, desperately
By Fatemah FaragDozens of academics, public figures, members of parliament and members of political parties took part in a recent conference organised by the Group for Democratic Development (GDD), a local NGO, with the support of the German Friedrich-Naumann Foundation.
The conference, entitled "Political parties in Egypt: the present and the future", was held at the Cairo headquarters of the Upper Egypt Association for Education and Development. It was a forum that opened a Pandora's box of unresolved issues related to domestic politics.
Discussions, which continued on and off for almost two weeks, covered: the legal obstacles facing political activism and the possibility of amending the Political Parties Law; problems of the electoral process; the organisational challenges faced by political parties and the relationship between the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) and the opposition. International perspectives were presented for comparative purposes by Wolfgang Zakinroder, regional director of Friedrich-Naumann, and Mohamed Ben Hamou, director of the Moroccan Hassan El-Yousi Centre for Political Research and Studies. The discussions ended with a round-table seminar on 11 May.
Everyone appeared to agree that the multiple and complex issues of domestic politics can only be addressed within the broader context of a common understanding of democracy. But what does this mean? Does it mean implementing existing laws, modifying them or introducing new ones? Perhaps the problem lies inside, and not outside, the organisational structure of political parties? Does democracy require that political parties and interest groups refine their areas of difference or work towards a common platform? Fikri El-Gazzar, a former member of parliament, noted that "democracy has fangs".
The debate over Law 40 for 1977, which regulates the activities of political parties, is a case in point. Shawki El-Sayed, a professor of law at Cairo University, argued that it is not the law that is to blame for the sorry state of political parties. Many of the attendees concurred, pointing out that there are already 14 parties in existence. "Do we need more caricatures of political parties?" asked one of the participants, "Or do we need to reform the existing ones?"
Critics of Law 40 described it as undemocratic, but failed to present a united front. Some insisted that the law be abolished and replaced by another, which would make the government's notification the only precondition for the establishment of a political party. Others, led by Abul-Ela Madi, who is involved in a legal battle to obtain a licence for the Wasat (centre) "party", asked for specific amendments to be made immediately as a precursor to a more comprehensive reform of the political system.
But these problems have been voiced by much the same political figures to little effect many times before. This dilemma manifested itself clearly during the workshop that prepared the final resolutions of the conference. There were some people who made maximum demands and some who called for a more practical, minimalist approach. Both sides argued their cases, oblivious to the acknowledged weakness and disarray of the opposition.
To address this weakness, a proposal was circulated to establish a united front grouping all of the opposition parties, one that would strengthen the hand of the opposition in its dealings with the government. This was summed up by the leftist activist Farid Zahran, who said: "Is it possible for Marxists, Islamists, Nasserists and Liberals to stick fully to the rules of democracy in managing the relationships between them, regardless of whether they are in agreement or have differences? The answer is 'yes' because, in all simplicity, there is no other choice if we want to save Egypt."
The idea is not new but the discussions cast shadows over its feasibility. On the one hand, there are critics who point out that a united opposition -- a minimum upon which everyone must agree -- would revive the days of the Arab Socialist Union, the nation's only political party under the late President Gamal Abdel-Nasser. This idea is not exactly synonymous with the understanding of democracy and pluralism.
Even proponents of the idea concede that there are problems. Wahid Abdel-Meguid, chief editor of the Arab Strategic Report issued by the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, pointed out that political parties are at present incapable of forging such an alliance, because of the constraints placed on political activity, in general, and the internal problems of these parties.
There were those people who called for coordination with some members of the ruling party, those who urged the president to relinquish his position as head of the National Democratic Party and those who argued that democracy would only prevail when education and the media became more democratic.
As the arguments went back and forth, an old man took the microphone in his shaking hands and, with tears in his eyes, said, "I am very tired. Of course, we have no choice but to fight on, but I am very tired."
