 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 16 - 22 December 1999 Issue No. 460 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 16 - 22 December 1999 Issue No. 460
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Debate Focus Profile Living Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters 'The hardest choice is moderation'
By Omayma Abdel-Latif
Abul-Ela Madi joined Al-Gama'a Al-Islamyia during his years at Minya University's Faculty of Engineering. In 1979, he left to join the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1984, he became a member, then deputy secretary-general, of the Engineers' Syndicate. He defected from the Brotherhood in 1995, after a row over the establishment of a new political party, to be called Al-Wasat. Madi applied twice for permission to form the party, but was turned down by the Committee on Political Parties, a semi-governmental body affiliated with the Shura Council.
Abul-Ela Madi
State officials have repeatedly said that political parties with religious platforms will not be legalised.
This has always been the state's stand on religious parties. But I want to clarify that we are not seeking to establish a religious party per se. We are talking about a civil party with an Islamic frame of reference. There are two possible interpretations of a religious party: it is either a theocratic party that calls for the rule of the clergy, as in Iran; or it is a party whose members belong to one religion or one sect and deny membership to individuals of other faiths. Based on this premise, I am totally against the label religious party. It has to be made clear that Al-Wasat is based on the concept of citizenship.
Why then have you been denied the licence twice by the Political Parties Committee?
We have two problems when we talk about participation in political life in Egypt. The first has to do with the notion of democracy and the flexibility of what has been dubbed by some the 'margin of democracy'. The government has drastically curtailed the possibility of political participation for all political forces, not just the Islamists. We have to remember that the last party that was legalised by the Political Parties Committee was the Nasserist party, almost eight years ago -- and that only through a court ruling.
The second problem has to do with our background as Islamists; although we have Coptic founding members, some said this was just a ploy to hide our sinister motives. This shows that many still cannot stomach the idea of a civil party with Islamist orientations. There seems to be a consensus among some political forces and individuals within the political elite to prevent political Islam from acquiring any legal existence.
Do you think an assessment of your literature on the state could bring you a step closer to legitimacy, particularly since the Islamists' commitment to democratic rule is being questioned?
Three sides are involved here: the Islamist movement, the state and society. All three will have to re-assess their overall views of politics and their vision of their role in Egyptian political life. We cannot single out one party as responsible for what is going on. But I believe that we -- the Islamists -- had to take the initiative, because admittedly we had a very negative attitude in our literature toward the state -- our 'Other' -- as well as concepts of pluralism and democracy. By seeking a role in political life through legitimate channels, we wanted to offer proof that we are not using Taqiya[a Shi'ite concept that legitimises dissimulating one's real intentions for fear of being persecuted]. If the authorities then reject us, this makes their position very weak. Therefore, the state should not treat the Islamist movements as a monolith. It should revise its policies with regard to those who seek to operate from within the system and through legal channels.
Would the existence of more than one Islamist political party not lead to a schism in the movement?
As I said, the Islamist movement is not a monolith. There is a big difference between the experience of former Jihad members currently seeking a licence as political parties [Al-Shari'a, Al-Islah], and our own experience. We have never resorted to violence and have been working by peaceful means and through legal channels. This cannot be taken lightly. They have opted for peaceful coexistence after waging war on the state for the past two decades. Our political discourse is different from theirs, although we are both based on an Islamic platform. However, I would argue that our project represents the best formula for peaceful coexistence between the state and the Islamists.
Are you going to apply for a licence again?
We are seriously considering it. We have hard times ahead of us but we will continue to apply as many times as it takes to obtain a licence. We know that the hardest choice is moderation, and the easiest choice is extremism. We have opted for the former. The state should know that we do not want to be an alternative to the system; rather, we seek to form a part of Egypt's political landscape in the coming century. In other words, we want to be viewed as an oppositional force and not a resistance movement: the opposition is part of the system whereas the resistance seeks to overthrow it -- this is precisely what we do not want.
