“Things cannot go on this way. If we continue with this social polarisation we could hit a serious crisis. An exit is desperately needed for the sake of social cohesion, political stability and economic improvement. This is the basis of my initiative that I know has been stirring up controversy,” said political scientist Hassan Nafaa in an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly. Speaking a few days after he had shared ideas that he had earlier offered to a leading member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) on political rapprochement in Egypt, Nafaa said that he was not troubled by the right-to-left attacks that he has come under for having dared to challenge the predominant idea of isolating, if not outright eliminating, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist political forces. “I have borne the brunt of considerable attacks that go beyond the public statements of those suggesting that I am trying to offer the Muslim Brotherhood a rescue from an otherwise looming once-and-for-all eradication. But in fact those who have read my initiative in this light are confining themselves to their anger, which is obviously legitimate as far as the Muslim Brotherhood is concerned. However, for my part I want to prioritise the interests of society and the wish to isolate the terror groups over my anger and frustration with the performance of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is precisely why I offered this initiative in the first place,” Nafaa said. According to the text of the initiative that Nafaa said he had offered to Mohamed Al-Assar, a prominent SCAF member last October, the objective is not to immediately jump into a pre-agreed deal on reconciliation but instead to “start a mechanism that would prompt the suspension of all forms of violence, protests and demonstrations and would allow for the wider denunciation of terror and would eventually leave the terrorist groups isolated. This is what would really win the war on terror,” he explained. Nafaa's initiative, which has been attacked by leftists and liberals alike and shrugged off by the Muslim Brotherhood, has prompted some positive, albeit limited, responses from some quarters who have argued that the state versus Islamist confrontation cannot go on in the way that it has been going. “I find that there are some, and this some I have to say is bigger than what I would have thought it to be, who see things clearly and realise that we are getting stuck in a political-turned-security crisis. There are some who see that we need an exit from this so that we can move on beyond the current convoluted political scene,” Nafaa said. He argued that what he was offering “is not at all a set of ideas for a take-it-or-leave solution. All I am offering is the basis for a mechanism that could start a process of dialogue that might or might not work depending on the political will of the parties concerned and the support of society for the answers that would be proposed, negotiated and hopefully agreed upon.” According to Nafaa's analysis of the situation, “Egypt is currently stuck with a crisis that should be blamed on all the political elite and the groups that have been managing state affairs since ousted former president Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down on 11 February 2011. Ever since then we have seen endless political mistakes and miscalculations that have taken us to where we are today.” “It has been an endless transition, in fact, that we have been living through and one with no clear vision of real stability and with worsening economic, political and security challenges that have been negatively influencing more and more people,” he argued. In particular, Nafaa blames the administration of ousted former President Mohamed Morsi for having failed to live up to the expectations of those who democratically elected the Muslim Brotherhood candidate in the first place. However, he is also uncertain about the design of the road map, announced after the ouster of Morsi, even though this could help Egypt “to peacefully end a long and hard transition that had been unfolding for three years now”. “We find ourselves today in the midst of a political quagmire where for the first time since Mubarak was forced by the 25 January Revolution to step down the legitimacy of the ruling regime is contested by more and more people and where there is an increasing tendency to count on a hardline security approach,” Nafaa said. “This is not a sustainable situation, certainly not if we are thinking in terms of moving on to building democracy and to reviving the slowing economy.” Contrary to those who “claim I was only thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood, my proposal, which I sent to Al-Assar last October, is clearly referring to the confrontation that the army has had to go through in Sinai which is now practically turning into an open war and to the other forms of terror attacks that have been targeting the army and police,” Nafaa stated. He argued that it was the realisation that things could not go on the way they have been unfolding during the three months prior to his October 2013 proposal that prompted Nafaa to share his ideas with the SCAF leadership “in the hope that it would indicate some positive response. Unfortunately, then and now I have not received anything from SCAF or from the authorities in general to suggest that they wish to build on the ideas I offered or to work them out into an effective mechanism for political dialogue.” That said, Nafaa said that when he chose to take his initiative to the public late last week, the realisation that some political exit needed to be formulated one way or the other had proved that people were hoping for an end to the confrontations. “I think that we cannot be held hostage to the fears and anger of those who have an ideological hatred for the Muslim Brotherhood or those who are still in a state of delusion, imagining that Morsi can be president again. We need to move away from the polarised sides and find a middle-of-the-road solution,” he said. According to Nafaa, any solution to the present crisis has to be based on two factors: first, the realisation that what happened on 30 June reflected the will of the people; and second that the assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood could simply be eradicated is unrealistic. “Those who like to think that the Muslim Brotherhood will just go away and that security eradiation is possible have not read the history of the group and mix the fate of the organisation, which has had many ups and downs but ultimately has survived, with the idea for which this group stands, which has a certain appeal whether we like it or not,” Nafaa said. The ability of the state to weaken the Muslim Brotherhood is not something that Nafaa is willing to dispute. “Yes, indeed it is there, and it has already happened. But the fact of the matter is that even in the days when the organisation was at its weakest, its ideas survived, and it survived all the security attacks,” he said. “So, I think it is pointless to expect the security approach to resolve the problem.” “What we need is not a security plan to eradicate the group because there is no such plan. What we need is rather a sense of political management whereby a basis for some sort of political formula could be designed with considerable consensus from all the key political players — though this consensus does not include the groups implicated in terrorism,” Nafaa insisted. Nafaa does not have a particular timeframe for the work of his proposed mechanism. He accepted that the success of the efforts of his proposed “committee of the wise” that would be charged with finding such a consensus would depend on their ability to accommodate the key concerns of both sides and to garner support from society. However, he believes that once things start they could pick up energy and could even engage some of those whose “ideological fear of the Islamists has blocked their appetite to even consider the idea of dialogue — even in an indirect format to start with.” Nafaa said that he would not be reaching out to those political quarters who have shown support or even interest in his ideas alone. “I am not soliciting any particular role here; all I am keen to have is an accentuation of what I think is an already existing and maybe even expanding realisation that society has to find its peace or else we are set for some very hard times ahead of us,” he argued. According to Nafaa, it will be up to those who “might not have the loudest voices but do carry the deepest faith in the purposes of sober dialogue to build on these ideas that I shared a while ago with SCAF and that I choose now to take to the public in the hope of encouraging the call for wisdom to prevail.” Nafaa is not excluding the prospect that a security-dominated mentality will prevail and will manage to sideline his call and the hopes it has prompted in many quarters for an end to the confrontations. However, this choice, he said, would only help to radicalise the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than to allow for it to evolve into a more moderate and possibly more modern organisation. “Currently, there are some voices within the younger echelons of the Muslim Brotherhood who want to start afresh and to pursue a more engaged political approach. If we allow the security round-ups to have the upper hand, we are simply weakening those who are calling for reform inside the Muslim Brotherhood,” Nafaa said. He added that this would be unfortunate “because as I have said the Muslim Brotherhood will not go anywhere and it would be better to have a political Muslim Brotherhood rather than a more radical extra-political group”. Nafaa is convinced that “had there been a ‘political mind' ruling the state” there would have been some sort of dialogue “with my initiative or through some other format”. If his initiative is declined for now, Nafaa is still hoping that it could be picked up seriously “once a new president is inaugurated.” “A president who wishes to implement measures that are designed to improve the quality of life of citizens and to improve the economy cannot do so away from political stability. No matter the security challenges and the security efforts, stability can only be sustainably secured through a political solution to the current crisis,” he said. “It will have to be done sooner or later, and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned.” Highlights of the Nafaa initiative Main features of the rapprochement initiative presented by political scientist Hassan Nafaa include: - The setting up of a “committee of the wise” under the presidency of prominent commentator Mohamed Hassanein Heikal with members including Mustafa Hegazi, strategic advisor to the interim president, Fahmy Howeidy, political commentator, prominent judge Tarek Al-Beshri, Selim Al-Awwa, lawyer for ousted former president Mohamed Morsi, prominent economist Galal Amin, and Deputy Prime Minister Ziad Bahaeddin, among other intellectual and political figures. - The appointment of a neutral go-between who would be accepted by the concerned parties and could start negotiations. - The drafting of an agreement on the renunciation of all forms of violence, the condemnation of terror in all its forms, and the suspension of demonstrations and other forms of protest and of media attacks and counter-attacks. - The release of the Muslim Brotherhood political leadership, as long as its members have not been found guilty of committing or inciting violent crimes. - The setting up of an independent commission of inquiry to look into violations committed since 25 January 2011. - The freedom of all political trends to form political parties and to be engaged in politics.
