Constructive change
Reform must have clearly defined goals, writesIbrahim Nafie
No gathering in Egypt is imaginable today without reform being a main topic of conversation. No seminar is held, on any subject, without the conversation drifting towards reform. The same is true in the Egyptian street. All this indicates that something in our general condition demands revision. Somehow, it is related to the fact that we are following closely events in the world and have developed a taste for catching up with the more advanced. This talk of change, though, contains a certain amount of exaggeration and much of it does not acknowledge the changes that have happened already in Egypt in the past two decades. What we should be discussing, perhaps, is not change but the pace of change.
No country in the world is free from debate over change, although the debate takes different forms from one place to another. As means of communications improved, as lifestyles changed, and as knowledge grew of the changes in lifestyles, societies became more eager to take part in public debates.
Half a century ago the world started to become a small village. Now, it is smaller even than a village. People's knowledge of what goes on elsewhere in the world is growing every day. As a result people in each country want the best that is available elsewhere. They take note of the good things happening in other countries but not the bad.
This is something new. In the past the question of change was linked to public disapproval of certain political, economic, social or other conditions. Change would arise when the public rejected certain things. Change was a question more of survival than improvement.
It is only in modern times that the world became interested in change as a means of improving on acceptable conditions. Change became a quest for the best, not an escape route from the worst. This is when something new came into the picture, a philosophical debate over the merits of change versus the merits of maintaining the status quo. This has become the essence of politics, for in every society the forces of change are pitted against those supporting the status quo.
To elaborate: debate is intense in Egypt over constitutional, and other aspects, of change. The Tagammu', for one, wants the clauses concerning presidential elections changed, but it wants what it calls indispensable "socialist gains" retained. Other political currents want the constitution to become more Islamic or more secular. The question, therefore, is not about "change" per se. It is about the things we need to change, and those we need to keep. These are questions that all nations have had to address since the beginning of modern times. The debate was once elitist but no more. The communication revolution has brought about a quantum leap in the way people address questions of change, a leap comparable to that of the industrial revolution.
This is both good and bad. It is good because it creates in every society a desire to attain the best. It is bad, however, if the quest for the best is disassociated from the circumstances through which society is passing. Societies differ not only in their stage of development but also in their ingredients, creeds, values, and experience. If one were to compare two societies while ignoring differences and particularities the outcome of the comparison would be misleading.
Take for example the matter of democracy, an issue over which there is a flurry of debate. The democratic system is the best -- or perhaps least harmful -- system of government known to man. The whole world seems to agree on that point. This does not mean, however, that all countries in the world should have the exact same political system, regardless of differences. There are certain requisites for democratic change in each country. For instance, democratisation cannot fully take root in the absence of a minimum level of democratic culture and conduct. Unless members of society are willing to accept differences in opinion, without bearing grudges or discontinuing the dialogue, it is necessary to introduce democratic change at a pace that allows them time to mature.
The same goes for acceptance of the outcome of elections. If certain forces are not willing to respect the will of the voters, democratisation must take place at a pace that allows such forces time to change their attitudes. Also, certain forces may be thinking of using elections as a means to reach and then monopolise power. Elections give winners a temporary mandate until it is time for the next elections. Those who secretly believe that their mandate would be permanent once they win are an obstacle to democratic change -- no matter that they clamour for democratisation.
This is the essence of differences with the current US administration, which has turned democracy into a tool through which to manage international relations. But democracy is a means to organise domestic affairs in each country. If used as a tool in international relations democracy is distorted. In my opinion democracy was never, and will never, be an end in itself. It is a means to organise relations in a country and society. Democracy is a means to achieve aspirations for a better life.
As we discuss change we should keep our eyes on the goals we seek, the societal context in which we act, the resources we have, the resources that we need to get, and society's ability to evolve.
Change is not to be taken lightly, nor is it a mere replacement of some individuals with others. It has to be linked to a clear view and to an objective assessment of the performance that we seek to improve. Real change is not something random or for show. It is a well-studied act of which the basic criterion is the improvement of the efficiency of public performance. Change is an act that involves inter-generational communication, through the accumulation of knowledge and experience. One should not fall hostage to the narrow view that change is a means to let the young have a go. The question of generations is part of true change, but it should not be the main theme. The ultimate criterion of change is the improvement of the efficiency of performance. This is what the government is doing, but at a rate that is less than is necessary at this particular phase, considering that it can now rely on a party that has been revamped and revitalised. The National Democratic Party has taken big steps, organisationally, politically, and intellectually. It has adopted a new thinking that takes reality, not abstract ideas, into account. This should allow for a change that involves improvement in public performances -- on all levels and in the shortest possible time.
