What are the most significant characteristics of President Al-Sisi's first year in office? Al-Sisi's first year in office has been marked by total reliance on the army. This probably has to do with his background. He joined the army at the age of 15 and so the military has dominated his socialisation. Presidents Gamal Abdel-Nasser and Anwar Al-Sadat were also army officers but they grew up in different circumstances. They had connections with active political movements before the 1952 Revolution. Nasser was associated with the Young Egypt Party, the Muslim Brotherhood and various communist groups. The same applied to Sadat. Al-Sisi is different in that he grew up in an environment that lacked an active political sphere and was dominated by a single-party. Nasser appointed civilian ministers who enjoyed his trust. Even within the president's office he did not limit himself to working with former army officers but had civilians helping him. Al-Sisi seems only to trust military people. The director of his office is an army officer. The head of the presidency is an army officer. He seeks the advice of people from the intelligence services who also have a military background. Some people argue that this is the end of Al-Sisi's second year in power and not his first, given that he has effectively been in charge of the country since he sought a mandate from the people to fight terrorism on 24 July, 2013? I disagree. Before he was elected president a number of people had influence. Ministers who were members of Hazem Al-Biblawi's cabinet said that Al-Sisi did not say much in meetings and would talk only when asked for his views. He was the front man in terms of security, of course, but I don't think he was involved in every decision taken by the government. Since his election his imprint is felt across the government. Widening the Suez Canal is his project. The same is true of plans for a new capital and the decision to redraw the boundaries of governorates. During his election campaign Al-Sisi did not announce a detailed program. He made some promises but warned meeting them would take time. Is it fair to pass judgement after just one year? We need to look at the promises that were made. The most important was included in the roadmap that was announced on 8 July, 2013, and covered legislative elections which were to be organised within six months of a new constitution being ratified. The constitution was passed in January 2014. Elections have not yet been held. In his speech in front of the UN General Assembly in September 2014 Al-Sisi said elections would be held before the end of the year. Another deadline not met. This failure is significant because it tells us something about the importance Al-Sisi attaches to parliament. I think he shares something with Nasser here. After overthrowing the monarchy Nasser expected the country to unite behind him. This did not happen. In his book Philosophy of the Revolution Nasser writes of his disappointment at being besieged by squabbling politicians seeking only a share in power. I think Al-Sisi shares Nasser's view that running the country should be like running the army. He expects the country to unite behind its leadership just as officers and soldiers unite behind their commander-in-chief. But politics means tolerating differences, disputes and debates. The successful statesman is the one who tries to build consensus and rise above these disputes to offer something acceptable to all political factions. This view of politics is not the mind-set of Al-Sisi. I don't think he feels comfortable with an elected assembly because it would mean debates, different points of view, and disputes. Many people interpret the continuous postponing of elections as a reflection Al-Sisi's wish to continue ruling the country in the way he ran the army. Isn't that how Mubarak ran the country? Mubarak was also an army officer but he trusted civilians. Look at those Mubarak consulted with. He surrounded himself with people like the former Speaker of the People's Assembly Fathi Sorour, former prime ministers Ahmed Nazif, Makram Ebeid and Atef Sidki, and long serving ministers. But under both Mubarak and Al-Sisi it looks like a one-man-show... Mubarak tended to be cautious and sought advice, even if indirectly. Once he came to the Faculty of Economic and Political Science where I teach and was presented with a proposal to restructure the presidency office so it might operate more like the White House, with a team of experts and advisors. Mubarak was very critical of this, arguing such a team would distance him from the people. Yet he regularly sought advice from experts within the government. The impression I have of Al-Sisi is that consultations are limited to army officers. Even the advisory councils he set up, when I look at the names of people on the councils there is no one known for having independent views. Does Al-Sisi act in such a way because he believes the country is in a state of war against terrorism? I understand the president must consult military people on matters of national security. Yet the fingerprints of the military are not restricted to the confrontation against the Muslim Brothers. Think of the so-called mega projects. Such major developments require consultation with experts and advisers from different backgrounds yet even here the army had the major say. I think it was a mistake to consult with the military over the election law. When Minister of Transitional Justice Ibrahim Al-Heneidi was asked about the extent of changes that would have to be made to the election law he said clearly that any alterations would have to be passed by the president. It was obvious Al-Sisi has specific views on the election law. It is one of those issues where he would have done well to listen to a range of experts, including politicians, rather than cook the legislation in the presidency's own kitchen. Al-Sisi came to power after two popular revolts, on 25 January, 2011 and 30 June, 2013. Egypt has changed since then and people are more aware of their rights. Do you think this should have influenced the way he rules or does the war on terror take precedence over everything else? Even the war on terror requires the building of a consensus. Many people voted for Al-Sisi because they thought he would bring stability and security. During his election campaign a number of prominent politicians — Amr Moussa, Abdel-Gelil Mustafa and Khaled Youssef among others — were part of his team. As soon as he became president these associations stopped. Newspapers known to support the president began criticising these people. Amr Moussa was attacked by newspapers close to the government. Abdel-Gelil Mustafa found himself with no way of contacting the president. I wonder why the president excised these people from his circle. The only explanation I can think of is that Al-Sisi's loyalty does not extend beyond the army. He doesn't seem to feel comfortable away from the methods he used while he was chief of military intelligence and later minister of defence. Al-Sisi was elected in the hope his military background would help restore security. Has the security situation improved since he came to power? Definitely. We no longer see the massive demonstrations that were held immediately following Morsi's removal. There are still demonstrations by the Brotherhood but they are mainly in provinces outside Cairo and small in scale. Personal security has also improved. There was a period when people did not feel safe going out because of fears of attacks by organised criminal gangs. This is not the case now. There are still terrorist attacks, particularly in Sinai, by groups like Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis and Ajnad Misr. There are other attacks — blowing up electricity pylons, targeting public transport — that I guess are carried out by Brotherhood sympathisers. These tend to be sporadic and local. Some argue the situation in Sinai is deteriorating… Sinai remains a major problem. Attacks that take place in urban areas are also a problem because of the human loss and material damage inflicted. And I think some government actions compound people's sense of insecurity. I read on an almost daily basis about the arrest of middle ranking Muslim Brotherhood members, or the “liquidation” of armed terrorists in Sinai. The recurrence of these stories is hardly conducive to fostering as sense of security. Do you believe the official rhetoric that despite all our problems we remain much better than Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen has helped bolster Al-Sisi's levels of support? The figures released by polling centres such as Baseera suggest the president's approval ratings are fairly static, hovering around 80 per cent. One reason he continues to maintain this popularity is that people compare the situation in Egypt to that in other countries in the region. They also compare the kind of government we have now what prevailed under Morsi. There is also a distinction which the public makes between the government and the president. Problems such as increasing prices and deteriorating services tend to be blamed not on the president but the prime minister and cabinet. But isn't this another Mubarak-like feature, people criticising the government while avoiding any mention of the president? It has always been like this in Egypt. The media helps perpetuate this separation between the president and the government. Egyptian newspapers are full of criticism of the cabinet of Ibrahim Mehleb but they never note that the prime minister was chosen by the president. How much improvement have we seen in the economy under Al-Sisi? Not much. In fact most people feel their standard of living is deteriorating because of inflation, a fact official statistics, which estimate that Egypt's GDP will grow at the rate of 4.2 per cent, fail to reflect. The same thing happened under Mubarak. People simply did not feel the improvements the statistics purported to show. Indeed, there are doubts that unemployment has fallen in the way government figures claim. The government continues to point to positive macroeconomic indicators while glossing over major macroeconomic concerns. The budget deficit, balance of payments and falls in foreign currency reserves have all reached critical levels. Crisis has only been headed off because of deposits Arab Gulf countries placed in the Central Bank. Do you think that following the four turbulent years since 25 January, 2011 people will wait another two or three years, which is how long Al-Sisi says it will take for the mega economic projects he has instigated to bear fruit? I don't think Al-Sisi envisages any alternative. The economic situation is very difficult. Austerity measures are necessary to deal with the budget deficit, and we need to find a way to make our exports more competitive in international markets. There are several possible strategies to deal with the situation. There is the textbook strategy, recommended by the World Bank and IMF, based on reducing government expenditure, controlling wages and encouraging foreign and private investment. This is what the government is doing, and what Mubarak did. Al-Sisi has adopted the same policies as Mubarak, leaving the IMF and the World Bank very happy with the Egyptian government. But these are the same policies which led to the deterioration in public services and the growing gap between rich and poor that fed the 25 January Revolution. During Mubarak's last years in office a small number of tycoon businessmen, led by his son Gamal, were in effective control of the economy. Are we in the same situation now? It is not clear how much the private sector in Egypt trusts the government. There seems to be a problem between the private sector and Al-Sisi. Newspapers supportive of the president have accused businessmen of not responding to Al-Sisi's call to contribute money to the Long Live Egypt Fund. Clearly there is a problem that did not exist under Mubarak when the private sector was very responsive to his demands, and those of his wife and son. There is a perception that Al-Sisi prefers to rely on the Armed Forces to carry out mega projects. I'm not just talking about the widening of the Suez Canal but also the development of the Suez Canal Zone and the project to build one million housing units that is being financed by the United Arab Emirates. Businessmen are simply not as close to Al-Sisi as they were to Mubarak and his son. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets in 2011 to demand freedom as well as social justice. How do you assess President Al-Sisi's record in terms of protecting basic freedoms? It is one of the areas where people's expectations have not been met. There was a greater diversity of views expressed in the media under Mubarak than now. Under Mubarak I was a member of the Executive Secretariat of the Kifaya Movement and we used to meet in downtown Cairo. I don't think this could happen now. Very few Egyptian newspapers carry articles that are critical of Al-Sisi and the talk shows on Egyptian TV channels sound identical. That so many military people appear in talk shows is a new phenomenon. There are also cases when talk shows have been taken off air because they were critical of Al-Sisi. The space for debate, freedom of association, the right to protest peacefully, and for NGOs and human rights groups, is shrinking. Ordinary people might not care about freedom of expression and association but they certainly care about their right not to be detained indefinitely. I know of many cases of people who have nothing to do with politics being held for months with little hope of their cases being considered by anyone. Al-Sisi has said innocent people are held in prison because of the protest law and should be released. Why hasn't this happened? I suspect he gets reports from the security agencies that the detainees are troublemakers and should remain in prison. I doubt Al-Sisi believes Egypt can afford freedom of assembly, as in the form of demonstrations. He does not believe the Egyptian people are ready for democracy. In an interview during his election campaign he said Egypt needs 25 to 30 years to have the kind of democracy that exists in Western countries. He also believes civil and political rights are outweighed by social and economic rights. My only comment on this is that economic and social rights are far from guaranteed in Egypt so it's not as if we have traded our civil and political rights to gain them. We don't have any of these rights. Should we expect more of the same during Al-Sisi's second year or are there signs of change? I don't see any sign that things are going to change. Even if parliamentary elections are held the election law will ensure the new parliament is dominated by independent candidates whose aim in running is to cosy up to the government. Political parties will form a minority.
