In Focus:

Beyond denial

It is time to come clean with the public, argues Galal Nassar, not least about potential successors to the office of president

---

The National Democratic Party (NDP) has just wrapped up its ninth congress. While in recent years the NDP and its leaders have often appeared lacklustre, their achievements seldom living up to the surrounding hype, this year there was a qualitative shift, particularly with regard to Gamal Mubarak.

The NDP assistant secretary-general and Policies Committee chairman is usually depicted in the press as having few exceptional qualities beyond being the president's youngest son. Yet at the conference there was a sense of purpose and maturity about his performance. He came across as a man who believes in what he does and says. And he succeeded in delivering several messages. Most importantly, he debunked the claim that he was a privileged person out of touch with the grim reality of the masses. He showed knowledge of Egypt's problems and demonstrated that he is out of touch with neither the mood in the streets nor the great game of facts and figures. The years he has spent in the backrooms of the NDP and the presidency have evidently paid off. More than at anytime before he appears suitable as a presidential candidate.

Such a statement will no doubt draw criticism. In recent years -- ever since Gamal's political career took off in fact -- there has been an incessant debate over the succession of power. Among my friends and colleagues there are two representative groups who might serve as stand-ins for a divided public. The first group argues that Gamal is being groomed for power and that such a transfer will represent a bequest even if democratic mechanisms are strictly observed.

The second group argues that Gamal is a suitable successor of his father and a realistic choice considering the conditions in the country and the complex working of Egypt's institutions. Gamal's coming to power, they maintain, will distance the military from power, consolidate civil life and usher in long-awaited democratic reforms.

Both views have merits, though reservations can be harboured about them both. And I respect the proponents of both for they share a common aspiration: that Egypt consolidates its position as a major regional power and unleashes its political and economic potential to the full.

I understand the objections of the first group and see how they might view Gamal's denial of any ambitions as an exercise in political obfuscation when measures are ongoing to consolidate his position and provide it with constitutional and legal guarantees. Gamal is a member of the NDP Secretariat-General, a position he acquired through a general vote. He is also a member of the NDP's newly formed Supreme Council, which effectively makes in the frontrunner in any race to become the NDP's presidential candidate in 2011. Gamal's path to the presidency is obstacle-free, his position legally and constitutionally sound.

Within a few years the country will face presidential elections and the NDP, in the end, has every right to field whatever candidate it wants for the presidency. It doesn't make sense for other political parties, or for the intelligentsia, to tell the NDP who to nominate for the post. The best the opposition can do is look for a candidate to challenge Gamal.

In all probability, Gamal Mubarak will be the next president of Egypt. This is true regardless of his avoidance of any discussion of the matter. Gamal's position is perfectly legitimate, certainly as far as the NDP is concerned. So let's deal with the issue pragmatically and candidly. Come 2011 we will need a president in office who can claim legitimacy. We need a president who has won a majority of the vote and has enough public support to get things done. For this to happen both groups -- Gamal's supporters and detractors -- must put aside recriminations and denial and level with the public. All the cards need to be on the table.

There are many channels of communication in Egypt. Some people like to pretend that the government is in full control of the media, including television. Is this really true? Now every party has a newspaper. And television satellite stations that are not state-run outnumber state-owned, terrestrial channels. A candidate with the right personality and programme can get media coverage. And he can challenge the NDP candidate.

As for Gamal Mubarak and members of the NDP's Supreme Council who are all -- by the way -- entitled to run for the post, they face a tough choice. Their future, and that of the entire country, is in the balance. It is no longer enough for them to come to the party congress with the usual expressions of concern, to say that the country is doing less well than it should or that more needs to be done to help achieve social justice.

The NDP has been in denial. It has denied that a conflict has been ongoing between its old and new guards. But the continual parrying and squabbles among key figures belies the pretence.

We need decisions that alleviate the bickering and conflict within the cabinet. We need decisions that remove freedom-restricting laws. We need decisions that eliminate corruption in all government sectors and a constitution that ensures the culprits are tried in an open, civilian court. We need decisions that reduce unemployment and poverty and restore a spirit of loyalty and belonging.

We need decisions that relieve us from the coterie of state-appointed chief editors and television and radio bosses who have dragged the credibility of the state through the mud. Pro-NDP media bosses monopolise some 85 per cent of news coverage in Egypt, and make a point of siding with the government no matter what it says and does. The NDP needs to change all this in order for its candidate to have a greater chance at the polls.

Egypt is not able to withstand a power vacuum, or even the promise of one. Look at what happened to the stock market during the rumours over President Hosni Mubarak's health. It is crucial, therefore, to insist that the presidential campaign start years ahead of the actual event. We need a democratic debate, one that will allow political maturity to develop and that spawns new names and programmes. We have a unique and real chance for democracy. We have a unique and real chance to heal the wounds of the past and put a majority candidate in the president's office. Will the NDP and the rest of our parties throw that chance away?