Slow motion
By
Salama A Salama
Following the National Democratic Party's (NDP) promise of a national dialogue on political, economic and social reform the public has taken a keen interest in the matter. Everyone knows that reform in this country is overdue. Indeed, so far have we fallen behind that many question our credentials to even talk of freedom and democracy.
For two months the national dialogue has continued at a snail's pace. The only insights the public have been offered into the process are NDP leaders' statements affirming its seriousness and defining its boundaries. The NDP secretary general -- flanked by a few colleagues -- conferred with one or two leaders from three opposition parties, the Tagammu, Wafd, and Nasserist. No details have emerged from the meetings, held with each party separately. No clues have been offered as to areas of agreement or disagreement. The brief press statements and general remarks following each meeting offer little insight into the boundaries and aims of reform. The leaders of the three opposition parties involved could have gone back to their parties to brief them on the outcome of the dialogue and prepare recommendations for future meetings. For some reason, they didn't.
Eventually the NDP secretary-general did inform the public that the dialogue was aimed at formulating a charter governing the behaviour of political parties and at canvassing opinion on ways to amend the Electoral Law. Opposition parties, we were told, will participate in formulating a document on citizens' rights and the country's newly digitalised ID system will be used in the 2005 elections. However worthy such issues they hardly deserve the rubric of national dialogue, and are unlikely to further the development of a democratic system. That, after all, requires commitment to the rotation of power and guarantees that the holders of offices at all levels, including that of president, be elected fairly. For this to happen we need a new constitution, one that upholds the rights of citizens, defines the relationship between individuals and the state and allows all political forces to participate in the political process within a clear legal framework.
The NDP has sought dialogue with the three major parties with a view to winning them over. But these three parties do not represent the entire Egyptian population anymore than does the NDP. Other parties and groups-- civil society institutions and syndicates, for example -- must be included. A genuine dialogue must aim at consensus among these diverse groups, not just among a handful of party leaders. Curiously, the three opposition parties in question seem to have forgotten the document they signed only a few months ago. "An Urgent Call for Constitutional, Democratic, and Political Reform" was released by the Committee for the Defence of Democracy on 8 May. It was signed by the Tagammu, Wafd, Nasserist, and Labour parties.
The slow pace of the dialogue may indicate a desire to pursue political reform in instalments: first a charter of honour for parties, then institutional framework for dialogue, then some practical steps, including elections. In which case the dialogue -- whether it reaches a consensus on a minimum level of reform or is interrupted at some point due to internal or external causes -- will take years, rendering the whole exercise pointless.
There are issues over which the NDP and opposition parties have no control that make of the national dialogue a necessity. The country should use the current atmosphere of relative calm to conduct the dialogue under Mubarak's wise leadership. We need transparency and vision, commitment to democracy and freedom, and a timetable of no more than three months to achieve the desired reforms. Foot-dragging will only benefit the old guard, those who want the status quo to continue. But it would be a disaster to keep things the way they are, particularly when others are busy redrawing Egypt's future.
