Gamal Nkrumah and Mohamed El-Sayed look for clues as to the nature of democratisation and political liberalisation Almost every opposition figure loves a nice, neat stereotype of the powers that be, and Saadeddin Ibrahim is no exception. The leading democracy activist was brazenly critical of the Egyptian political system. Ibrahim, professor of sociology at the American University in Cairo (AUC) and director of the Ibn Khaldun Centre for Developmental Studies did not mince his words. Not only was he carping, but he aired his grievances overseas. Ibrahim met United States President George W Bush during the Democracy and Security Conference held in the Czech Republic. Soon after, Bush was openly critical of the Egyptian political establishment. In the capital Prague, Bush unleashed a deluge of scathing criticism against Hosni Mubarak's regime. The opprobrium of the American president aroused the anger of several prominent Egyptian pundits. Ibrahim asked Bush to press for democratic reforms. News reports had it that this had angered President Mubarak and that the state-owned press had launched their own vitriol against Ibrahim. The chairman of the board of Al-Ahram Mursi Atallah was stinging in his critique in the national daily concerning Bush's fault-finding of the Egyptian regime. "George Bush will be mistaken if he does not understand the reason behind the cool Egyptian reception given to his comments in Prague. The status quo proves that there is a wide gap between Bush's declarations and actions, especially with regard to the Middle East in general and his concern with spreading democracy in particular," Atallah wrote. Atallah pointed out that US foreign policy was short-sighted and confused. "In fact, American policy suffers from schizophrenia, especially if we ponder the statement made by the American ambassador to Cairo 24 hours after the provocative remarks made by Bush in Prague." In much the same vein, Galal Dewidar writing in the daily Al-Akhbar , decried American interference in Egyptian domestic affairs. He pointed to the US Congress's hint that it may cut $200 million in aid from Egypt, noting that the country does not need American aid with strings attached. "Some of the decision- makers in America do not stop issuing unjustified judgments and accusations or punishment without taking into consideration that this will be violating the sovereignty of states." Dewidar charged the Bush administration with racist and religious bias against Egyptians, Arabs and Islam and vigorously defended the Egyptian position. "What Washington said is a provocation of Egyptian national feelings... we are fed up with the American [double- standards] policies which are anti-Egyptian, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic." Ibrahim was unperturbed by insinuations that he is a sell-out. He launched a tirade against his detractors in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Yom . "Those who launched attacks on the Prague conference do not deserve any reply from me. They have received orders from security apparatuses [to criticise me]. These apparatuses become upset when any foreign official criticises Egyptian [regime] policies or when this official defends imprisoned politicians like when George Bush mentioned [imprisoned Al-Ghad leader] Ayman Nour and asked for his release." He was unrepentant about his meeting with President Bush. "When George W Bush asked me how America can help democrats in our Arab world, I replied that the US administration should stop imposing democracy by way of weapons as it is doing in Iraq. I also asked him to stop supporting the Egyptian tyrant regime which receives $2 billion in aid annually." Ibrahim also disclosed to the daily independent Al-Dostour, "Bush told me that Mubarak said to him that he has become old and will leave democratic reform to the next generation." The Prague conference was an ideal forum for Ibrahim to badmouth the regime. A generation ago, this would have been a negative. Today it is a plus. This, many papers argue, is a big change. The press has increasingly become obsessed with the question of democratisation and political reform. The pundits in many papers now wonder what in practice that might actually involve. The director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies Abdel-Monem Said wrote in Al-Masry Al-Yom about the Shura Council elections held last week. Thanks to reportedly wide-scale vote rigging and ballot box stuffing following absence of full judicial supervision, the National Democratic Party (NDP) won the sweeping majority of seats. "There is a unique kind of election in Egypt which is known only to the people of Cairo, and the world looks on astonished by it," explained Ibrahim. "Egyptian elections are not like in Syria, where results are a forgone conclusion. In the Egyptian elections the National Democratic Party and national newspapers swear that the elections are fair. And the Muslim Brotherhood and their loyal newspapers swear that they are all rigged even before the poll opens. And there is always a scene reserved for the boycotting parties, within which there is disagreement over the wisdom behind the boycott." Ibrahim, poking fun at the ruling NDP's decision to field many of its candidates from the same constituency, continued, "when we reach the results, the NDP wins the sweeping majority of seats... the NDP has decided to be a representative of the government and the opposition together. This is a purely Egyptian experience!" Moreover, many commentators remarked that Ibrahim was well-positioned to take advantage of the changing political climate in the country. He is derided by his critics as being an American agent. Ibrahim, in turn, addressed such worries with outspoken valiancy. "And, in this manner the [elections] episode goes on full of enthusiasm, excitement and noise."
