Follow through

Gamal Nkrumah reviews the controversy surrounding the publication of Mohamed Hassanein Heikal's letters to President Mubarak in Al-Masry Al-Yom

---

Heikal

"Let me make this clear from the outset. This series of articles was not intended to embarrass anyone," Mohamed Hassanein Heikal told Al-Ahram Weekly. "I have read carefully what my detractors say. Personally, I do not feel obliged to defend myself. I do not need to defend my record."

The articles to which Heikal, one of the region's leading political commentators, was referring are in fact a series of open letters to President Hosni Mubarak, penned shortly after he took office in the early 1980s and serialised in recent weeks by the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Yom.

A quarter of a century after being written, one thing the publication of the letters has clearly demonstrated is that rival players in Egypt's political establishment still refuse to bury the hatchet and much of their indignation revolves around the public persona of Heikal.

"I wrote what I did, and I do not regret it," Heikal said, dismissing the angry responses his articles had provoked. "The simple truth is that democratisation and political reform in Egypt have long been inevitable and much of what has been written criticising the articles is the result of psychological imbalance, of extreme nervous tension. I cannot be bothered to argue with, or issue rejoinders to, nervous wrecks. They have their own reasons for being fidgety and neurotic but that is not my problem. It is for them to sort out their problems. I have said what I intended to say and I am satisfied with what I said."

Among the subjects he raised was the question of who should succeed Mubarak as president of Egypt, a topic guaranteed to raise the hackles, one way or another, of everyone involved in Egypt's political scene.

Heikal remains unrepentant. "It is the people, not the NDP, that can bestow legitimacy on a new president and his mandate," he insists.

If Heikal's detractors were quick to raise their voices, so too were his supporters, among them Salama Ahmed Salama, the distinguished Al-Ahram columnist, who says Heikal had originally intended to publish the articles in the official weekly magazine Al-Musawwar but that President Mubarak vetoed the idea.

Misgivings about the timing and nature of Heikal's articles unleashed a torrent of opprobrium from apologists of the status quo, most notably from the pro-government Rose El-Youssef, which questioned Heikal's integrity. "Heikal is in the employ of the United States," warned Abdallah Kamal, the editor- in-chief of Rose El-Youssef. The paper went on to accuse Heikal of manipulating historical facts for his own ends.

Nor was the criticism limited to Egyptians. The Arab world's foremost commentator also came under fire from Arab pundits. Heikal's opponents are in no doubt of his culpability, though what exactly they accuse him of is not entirely clear. He is up to something seems to be the most common accusation.

Others displayed a more studied criticism of Heikal. In an article published in the pan-Arab London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat Abdel-Moneim Said, director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, questioned the reasons why Heikal had raised the issue of succession now. Under the title The Return of the Master, Said likened Heikal to a cut gem on display in a museum and basking in the admiration of visitors, contrasting the polished diamond with its more functional, if less glamorous, industrial counterparts.

"Heikal might revel at the 'aahs' and 'wows' of his admirers, and he has a huge following, but what is sorely needed is the sturdy industrial diamond that is of practical use in industry," Said told the Weekly.

Heikal, Said implied, may be a national treasure but his high-profile discourse is essentially flamboyant and showy. "The public warmed up to his critique of the system partly because of the vicious personal attacks he suffered," argues Said.

On the question of timing, Said is unsure of Heikal's motives. First, he says, one of the Master's less endearing character traits is that he is susceptible to making periodical "splashes" which Said terms "Heikal cycles". Said concedes that much of what Heikal says is "pertinent and popular" and believes that the fact that the issue of succession has become of vital public concern and scrutiny played a role in the timing of the letters' publication. But he also raises the issue of Heikal's own age. He is, after all, 86, though his impulse for showmanship has shown no signs of waning.

Heikal stopped short of offering his readers any insight into his own reasons for choosing to publish the series of articles now, contenting himself in the last letter, published on Sunday, with the observation that, "it is the inalienable right of responsible leadership to talk openly about policy changes but this must not be done by stealth or deception."

In pleading Heikal's case Salama notes that, "there must be a new beginning."

"The critical point is that Mubarak must not nominate himself again for the presidency. This must be the last time he stands for president. As a consequence the constitution must be redrawn. There has to be a referendum determining the new president and his deputy, and a vice-president is a prerequisite," Salama explained. "These, in my opinion, are some of the key issues that cropped up in Heikal's letters."

That Egypt's leaders should not imagine there is a plausible long-term alternative to democratisation and political reform is hardly a new position to take. What is remarkable is that such ideas were voiced a quarter of a century before they became common political currency.

Egypt's nascent democracy, Heikal argues, must not be permitted to degenerate into a sham, and one way for the country to avoid making a hash of its future would be for Egyptian policymakers to ensure that ordinary Egyptians are cushioned from the worst effects of economic reforms. He stresses the importance of providing equal opportunities for all Egyptians, noting that the trickle down effect of any economic upturn has yet to be felt.

Heikal's concluding article, published on Sunday, was a veritable bombshell. Under the title "What is the Solution?" he outlined what he sees as the problems of governing Egypt.

Heikal may not be a politician but he continues to vie for influence. "Religious extremism is a natural reaction to a feeling of alienation," Heikal explains. "When the individual feels that his citizenship rights are being eroded then he or she finds no other solace but to turn to God for supplication."

Heikal reminds Mubarak that during his incarceration in the Sadat era he shared his prison cell with militant Islamist inmates, and knows that it is the bitter sense of alienation that enrages them. "If challenges are impossibly difficult then who can work miracles? God is their refuge."

Dated November 1982, the last of the published letters reveals that Heikal has his finger on the pulse of the nation. In Letters to President Mubarak Heikal assumes the role of presidential advisor.

"Unfortunately, the United States believes that it is in its interest to drive a wedge between Egypt and the rest of the Arab world," Heikal notes, stressing that the most intractable problem Egypt faces in the foreign arena concerns the precise nature of its relationship with the US.

To support his theory Heikal recalls a conversation with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger. "[Kissinger] said that he wished our conversation could be restricted to Egypt. Egypt, he said was one thing, and the rest of the Arab world another."

Heikal does stress, however, that Egypt and other Arab countries must avoid unnecessarily provoking a hostile US.

"In this country, Mr President, no one wants an all out war with the US, not even a single battle. Everyone knows that the US is a mighty nation, everyone understands the role played by this superpower." But he goes on to argue that the nature of the relationship between Arab states and the US are complex and problematic. "The US has extensive interests in this region and imagines that its interests would best be served by maintaining the status quo."

As far as Heikal is concerned it is difficult to change military fatigues for a pinstripe suit, though he has few doubts that Egypt's next president should be a civilian. "Now Egyptian democracy must follow through," he prophesies.

Abdel-Moneim Said is dismissive of what he characterises as Heikal's atavistic nationalism though one of the most intriguing aspects of the letters are the geopolitical vision they propose.

"The Arab world could easily be compartmentalised into four distinct groups coinciding with specific geographical areas," Heikal points out. "The Arabian peninsula; the Fertile Crescent encompassing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine; the Nile Valley comprising Egypt and Sudan; and the Arab Maghreb, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania." He goes on to suggest that some of these sub-Arab regions are more homogenous and less fractured than others.

"An old Western colonial demand was to 'incarcerate' Egypt in Africa. Israel, today, has adopted this strategic goal. As the world witnesses the commotion at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Palestine, it becomes clear that the geographical confinement of Egypt to the African continent is a key Israeli goal," notes Heikal. Instead of acting as a gateway, a natural conduit, between the Arab Mashreq [East] and the Arab Maghreb [West], Egypt is literally being blocked by Israel from fulfilling its traditional role. Ironically, it is a role Israel has revived through its economic blockade of Gaza.

In hindsight, Heikal was something of a seer.

Sayed Yassin, of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, notes that Heikal's articles in Al-Masry Al-Yom reveal a clear correlation between the Egypt of 1982 and Egypt 2008.

Heikal observes that Mubarak came to power with the authority of his military background and a legitimacy conferred by his key role in the 1973 October War, inferring that this underwrote the peaceful transfer of power from Sadat to Mubarak. He then suggests that the next transfer of power from a president with a traditional military background to one drawn from civilian society will not be so smooth.

Egypt is again chewing over Heikal's words and his letters have opened a can of worms. His devotees, though, are clear about one thing: Don't write off the Master yet.