Al-Ahram Weekly | Press review | Political merry-go-rounds

Everyone seems to have gotten themselves swept up in a vicious circle: foreign intervention vs reform and around they go. Fatemah Farag reviews a press that might want to stretch the limits of its imagination

The bone of foreign intervention is one that most seem incapable of letting go of. "Whether we like it or not there is both explicit and implicit foreign intervention [into our political affairs]. And there is funding from abroad. If we are capable of monitoring some of it there will be that which is beyond our sight... And there will be men whose veins swell as they speak about their abilities, bravery and loyalty in speaking their minds and screaming on the streets... These are the corrupters and if they take over power in Egypt this will be a major catastrophe for this country and the Arab region as a whole," tells us the editorial of October magazine on 23 April.

After all, we do not have to look far to see what the Americans are up to. According to Galal Dweidar on 26 April in his front page editorial in Al-Akhbar, the American position against Syria is not really for the sake of Lebanon's welfare. "It [the US position] is another step in a plan to deepen the chasm between Arab countries and to deprive them of the opportunity of unifying their positions."

This is not to mention the by now de rigour anti-American/anti-local opposition editorial of Rose El-Youssef. And this week yet another full page exposé in Al-Osbou on 25 April where Mahmoud Bakri reviews a report allegedly presented by a US State Department consultant which includes plans by the CIA to infiltrate student and teaching staff ranks within Egyptian universities and manipulate both the Muslim Brotherhood and Kifaya opposition movements. Egyptian citizens, argued Bakri, must be aware of how the Americans perceive local political and opposition movements.

All of which seems to beg the question that if everyone who opposes the current government or advocates reform and change is either directly a pawn of foreign intervention or playing into the hands of foreign intervention, where does that leave the possibility of society moving forward?

Mohamed El-Sayed Said in Al-Qahira 26 April takes issue with the whole foreign funding argument which he says is being used to introduce restrictions on the possibility of independent presidential nominations. "The proper position vis-ˆ-vis this possibility [of a candidate receiving foreign funding for his campaign] is not to restrict the right of nomination but simply to pass legislation making it criminal to accept funding from abroad that would be used to affect the results of general elections."

What really galls Said is that those who make the foreign funding argument are implying that the Egyptian people are all for sale. "It sets up the Egyptians as a people aking to mercenaries willing to sell their votes for foreign -- or non- foreign -- money." And while Said admits that a minority of votes have been sold in elections before, he argues that this is because people were fully aware that the elections were a scam and not a part of democratic reform. "If the presidential elections are a door towards reform, Egyptians will not sell their votes for simple services or for foreign, Arab or local money."

Some people will argue, however, that a conservative attitude towards the potential of reform is in fact the best approach. Sherif El-Shobashi in Al-Ahram on 25 April tells us a dose of democracy is nothing like a pop of Viagra. "When a man takes a Viagra pill he knows when its effects will begin and how long it will last. He chooses the time to take it and he does not require preparations of any kind to enjoy its benefits." That may or may not be true but the point, according to El-Shobashi, is that there are some who think that democracy is just a decision that needs taking. "This reduction in understanding [the true nature of democracy] poses a danger to the process of democracy in Egypt."

Sanaa El-Said in Al-Osbou argues a good place to start moving in the right direction might have been opening up the debate of Article 76 of the constitution to the public. As a result of the decision to make these discussions in closed sessions instead, El-Said argues, "Egypt looks as if it is still in the Dark Ages. Who would believe that after the slogans to the effect that we are living in the brightest era of democracy, that our media is luminary and that our skies are open -- all of which have given us a headache -- that this is what would happen!"

And besides, argues Hassan Shaaban, in Al- Arabi on 24 April, any amendment that begins and ends in the choice of the president is not enough to bring about democratic change. He lists the basic demands the opposition and independent activists have been clamouring for: an end to the emergency law; the freedom of political parties; freedom for trade unions and syndicates; and the freedom of thought and creativity. It is not that Shaaban makes light of the foreign intervention factor, nor the immense challenge these amendments pose. But he wonders: "Is there any other path [to confront these dangers] than that we should stand together in strong national unity and face our common enemies. We must stand together and announce that it is "no to vicious American imperialism, no to the imperialist Zionist enemy, no to oppression and dictatorship, no to poverty, and no to evicting farmers from their land.

"Some people want to fight for all of these things and some want to fight for parts of it. Be that as it may; what is more important is that we be one voice."

The fact that arguments have to be made to explain why it is that the Egyptian people deserve, and can handle, democracy and freedom should in itself be an eye-opener. Commenting on the censorship of the late director Atef El- Tayeb's 1986 movie The Innocent, an incomplete version of which was shown for the first time last week at the National Film Festival, Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid in Al-Qahira highlighted the fact that we live in a culture of oppression, what he describes as "a long history of incitement against freedom, the heroes of which are the intelligentsia." According to Abu Zeid, it is noteworthy that all the battles against the freedom of expression were started by members of the intellectual class and fuelled by the media. "The culture of oppression is still more deep rooted than many of us think, to the extent that it pushes our enemies to doubt the extent to which we deserve freedom, or are up to it."

"We are very confident about ourselves. We have credibility." Habib El-Adli to Al-Ahram

"I never thought about doing this but some of my students told me that I should do it to break the locks of