Testing times

Has there really been a radical shift in the NDP's way of thinking? Omayma Abdel-Latif explores the transformation -- or lack thereof -- within Egypt's ruling party over the last five years

---

Click to view caption

WHO'S ON THE TEAM?: The party leaders closest to the president's son became synonymous with a modernising trend within the party itself. (above) The rise of Gamal has been accompanied by speculation over the future of the party's leading figures, including the influential El-Sherif (left)

THE NDP ACCORDING TO GAMAL MUBARAK: The NDP's embarrassing performance in the 2000 parliamentary elections -- it won only 38 per cent of the 444 People's Assembly seats -- set in motion a process of change that swept along the party's rank and file. The ensuing public debate about these changes was not, however, concerned with what they might mean for the party's future role; rather, it was much more concerned with the figures directing the change. Following the elections a new political clique emerged, led by Gamal Mubarak, President Hosni Mubarak's younger son and a new comer to the political scene.

A turning point was widely assumed to have been reached with the NDP's eighth congress convened in September 2002. Held under the banner "New Thinking", the Congress consolidated Gamal's entry into party politics, a move that would later trigger criticism and become one of the key issues shaping debate on the future of Egypt, which came increasingly to focus on the issue of succession.

Gamal, and the group surrounding him, became synonymous with a modernising trend within the party. His big moment came during the eighth congress when he had the opportunity to explain to party cadres why he believed change was essential. "Egypt," he told party members, "is undergoing radical change in all aspects of life; the ruling party can only cope with these changes by reconsidering some of its founding principles and outlining a new vision for the future."

This new vision would be spearheaded by one of five newly created bodies, the Policies Committee. The committee was charged with the task of formulating NDP policy, and its mandate extended to reviewing legislation before it was submitted to parliament. Chaired by Gamal Mubarak, it quickly established itself as one of the most influential organisations within the party and its leading members were increasingly viewed as wielding unchecked power when it came to shaping the political and legislative agenda of the NDP.

While the committee has 200 members, decision-making lies in the hands of a small group associated with the chairman. Ambiguity surrounding the exact role and powers of the committee triggered a wave of criticism, particularly within opposition circles. Some considered it to be tantamount to a secret society within the party while others described it as a centre of power that operated behind closed doors.

"The committee," wrote one pro-government analyst, "has been transformed into a mysterious power that enjoys the upper hand in all party affairs."

"People," demanded another, "should know that Gamal Mubarak is not above the party and that the committee cannot be a power centre divorced from the party."

The committee was invested with wide-ranging powers, from proposing legislation to establishing affiliated committees through which it could enhance its influence.

But according to Mohamed Moussa, NDP veteran and head of the Legislative Committee in the outgoing assembly, the influence of the committee has been exaggerated. "There are several decision-making bodies within the party and none of them can claim a monopoly over the process," Moussa told Al-Ahram Weekly.

Political analyst Nabil Abdel-Fattah, of Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic and Political Studies, is not convinced. He believes the NDP has effectively been reduced to the Policies Committee. "The danger," he says, "lies in the fact that the committee members wield power without legitimacy. They have not been elected and they do not owe their position to any clear demonstration of political expertise."

Neither, claims Abdel-Fattah, has the committee made progress in its avowed mission of modernising the party.

"The committee has failed to develop the party's infrastructure. Nor has it challenged conservative ideas long dominant within the party." That this is the case, he continues, reflects the committee's real raison d'être: "The endgame was not so much about modernising the party as creating a launch-pad for the president's son to enter the political scene."

OLD GUARD VERSUS NEW GUARD: The rise of Gamal Mubarak and his associates has been accompanied by speculation over the future of a number of leading figures within the party. The past three years witnessed a surge in reports purporting to reveal simmering discontent among the party's old guard over the way Mubarak was running party affairs. In public the party struggled to maintain an image of unity while behind closed doors, it was speculated, an all out war was taking place. The rumours, on occasion fuelled by hints made by members of the so-called new guard that a struggle was indeed taking place, have been consistently downplayed by party veterans such as Safwat El-Sherif and Kamal El-Shazli.

Some observers argue that the differences between the two camps are in any case negligible. It is an argument lent weight by a speech Gamal Mubarak delivered at the American University in Cairo in May 2003, almost a year after being appointed chairman of the Policies Committee. The speech contained few departures from the line adopted by both his father and the NDP's old guard. He defended the emergency laws, dismissed the possibility of amending the constitution to change the way in which the president is elected and defended the actions of security forces against anti-war protesters, many of whom were allegedly beaten and tortured.

"There is little difference between the agendas of the old and new guard," said one analyst. "The differences that exist are a matter of style rather than substance."

The perceived ideological tug of war between the two camps continued, however, to shape political debate and Mubarak's re-election to a fifth term in office was portrayed as a victory for the modernisers.

"The president's victory is a victory for new ideas," declared Gamal Mubarak. Many interpreted his words as signalling the tightening of the reformers' grip over party affairs. The parliamentary elections, though, present the new guard -- who lack any real experience of dealing with the party's grassroots membership -- with a more difficult prospect than the presidential poll, and a truce appears to have been declared. Reports in the independent media have spoken of a deal being cut between the two camps which will last throughout the elections campaign in an attempt to avoid a repetition of the party's dismal 2000 electoral performance.

This sudden truce has been accompanied by growing criticism, voiced even in state-owned papers of the NDP's monopoly over the state apparatus. This hegemony, say critics, can be traced to the president's chairmanship of the party.

"The National Democratic Party," wrote Hazim Abdel-Rahman in Al-Ahram, "knows what it is worth. Its leaders know perfectly well that the day the president decides to give up his chairmanship of the party the NDP will be no more than a straw in the wind."

THE NEW OLD THINKING: The NDP continues to claim it represents the mainstream and, by virtue of doing so, occupies the centre ground. In party literature the emphasis is on NDP support for democracy, human rights and the market economy. In the words of NDP Secretary- General Safwat El-Sherif the party stands for moderation, rationality and liberalisation. Such rhetoric, say critics, is without substance. It is an exercise in window dressing, largely for the benefit of the West.

In raising its "New Thinking" slogan the NDP begged more questions that it has appeared willing to answer. Does this new thinking mean that the party is willing to embrace ideological and structural change? It is a question that has left many perplexed.

"There is nothing new about the NDP's new thinking," Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil, professor of political economy at the AUC, told the Weekly. "The trinity of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation which governs the way Mubarak and his clique run the party and, with it, the economic agenda, has been tried in several countries, particularly in Latin America. It is close to the Washington Consensus, a school of thought clearly biased towards big business and obsessed with integrating within the international economy and striving to be compatible with globalisation."

Abdel-Fadil believes that a structural development did take place during the party's last convention, with businessmen moving up the party hierarchy to occupy leading positions.

"Big business is now well represented within the party's nerve centres and decision-making bodies," says Abdel-Fadil. "You find businessmen everywhere now, on parliamentary committees and playing a key role in formulating legislation."

But the relationship is a two-way street. As the NDP increasingly protects the interests of big business so will the NDP play the business card in the up-coming parliamentary elections. It has accepted a large number of businessmen as candidates, and many of them will be standing in constituencies in which the NDP faces a strong opposition, or Muslim Brotherhood, challenge.

HARD DAYS AHEAD: Many analysts believe the parliamentary elections will be a greater test of NDP unity than of the strength of Egypt's nascent democracy. The party's method of selecting candidates through an electoral college -- adopted following the 2000 debacle, and largely at the insistence of Gamal Mubarak -- has created what the official press has described as havoc and chaos within the party. Some 3,000 candidates applied to stand in just 444 seats. Those rejected have threatened to stand independently, raising the possibility of a re-run of 2000 when, having lost its majority, the NDP then re-admitted successful independent candidates to its ranks.

How the NDP treats these maverick independents will be a crucial test. In an interview with Al-Ahram, Zakariya Azmi, prominent NDP member and head of the presidential staff, insisted that those who decide to nominate themselves without the consent of the party will be expelled and not allowed to return. Azmi dismissed the possibility of a repetition of the events of 2000.

To Azmi's stick Gamal Mubarak added a carrot, hinting to rejected candidates that they will be found different positions within the party, pointing to the 2006 Shura Council elections and the municipal elections scheduled soon after.

Whether such statements will be enough to absorb the anger of nominees who failed to secure a place on the NDP's list of candidates remains to be seen. The answer to that question will go a long way in determining whether the NDP unity will survive.