But to where, wonders Khalil El-Anani*, does the NDP think it is surging? Despite its control of state institutions the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) enjoys little public support. Unlike other parties in the country it lacks a specific ideology; it is the least "politicised" political group around. People join the NDP without giving much though to ideology. They join to peddle influence or exchange money for prestige. In other words, the NDP is a socio-economic institution interested mainly in horse trading. Yet the NDP does venture into politics on occasion, especially at election time and during public debates. Five years ago the NDP launched its first "surge forward", promising to put its house in order and bring in new blood. In 2000 a new generation of younger NDP leaders told us of their "daring" initiative to change the party's structure and bylaws. The initiative had a dual goal: to reshuffle power within the party in favour of the "new thinking" team led by the president's son, and to tackle the party's lack of popularity. In the 2000 elections the NDP won only 33 per cent of seats and remained in control of parliament only because it recruited independent politicians to its ranks. At the time it was suggested that the party was on the verge of regaining vigour through the kind of extensive restructuring that was undertaken by the UK Labour Party in 1997. Since then the NDP has become adept at passing new legislation. The Policies Committee, chaired by the president's son, has masterminded most of the country's new laws with parliament assuming a rubber-stamping role. The government mostly stood by, rarely offering its opinion on the content legislation. Most of these new laws had an "elitist" feel about them but that, we were told, should give no cause for concern. The NDP is the majority party after all. Most of the NDP's reforms focused on the economy. The party passed laws that floated the currency, reorganised banks, restructured taxes and tariffs, boosted competition, restricted monopolies etc. Political legislation came in second place and was approached with caution, as if it were taboo. Some of the NDP's social initiatives were portrayed as instances of overdue "political reform". It abolished national security courts, cancelled several military decrees, created an "official" human rights council, allowed half-Egyptian children nationality and set up family courts. The NDP amended several laws pertaining to political parties, the exercise of political rights, presidential elections, publishing offences, and the judiciary. Most of the amendments, however, fell short of the reforms long promised by NDP leaders. And the most famous initiative, to amend Article 76 of the Constitution, came from the president and took most NDP members by surprise. Over the past five years the NDP has failed to change its image as a self- serving club, its makeover little more than a cosmetic exercise that has failed to smooth out the problems that mar its decision making. The outcome of the 2005 legislative elections wasn't much different from that of the 2000 elections. The poor performance of the NDP in the elections reflects its inability to convince voters of the seriousness of its reform programme. The party replaced old faces with newer ones, mostly men with international economic connections and a different internal and external outlook. But the lower ranks of the party are still the same. The NDP remains populated by individuals suspected of financial irregularities, especially in the countryside. The NDP's first "surge forward" caused only a ripple in the party's performance and the country's political life. It raised expectations that it couldn't meet, spreading disappointment rather than hope. Now the NDP is talking of a second "surge forward" that aims -- according to a party official -- "to rid the party of some old ideas and launch a new era of ideas and policies". But the NDP has yet to assess the package of policies it introduced in the last five years. Nor is it willing to admit that it has no intention of changing the political system or the party's relationship with other political groups in the country. We often hear NDP members talking about the implementation of the platform announced by President Mubarak during the presidential elections a year ago. Mubarak promised several constitutional amendments but the NDP has so far refused to hold any dialogue with other political groups to discuss the nature or extent of the changes. Instead it is trying to ignore the whole issue by focusing on other matters, such as the powers of the People's Assembly, the representation of women in parliament and the strengthening of local councils. The NDP manages an annual dose of optimism around its congress, usually accompanied by promises of serious constitutional reform. But words are cheap. The NDP has yet to address Article 74 of the constitution, which allows the president to issue legislative decrees. The NDP has yet to re-amend Article 76, which in its current form is biased against non-NDP presidential candidates. It has yet to abolish Article 77, which allows the president to stay in power for life. In short, the NDP is avoiding any constitutional amendment that changes the nature of the political system. It wants to hang on to all the top posts, especially the presidency, and in doing so is blocking any chances for the peaceful rotation of power. Top billing at the fourth NDP annual congress went to nuclear technology. Even this looked like a publicity stunt aimed to shore up the party's popularity and external image. The NDP wants to be the custodian of Egypt's political life without shouldering the burdens this brings. Its leaders don't have much to say about worsening poverty in the country. The NDP has failed to prosecute senior officials in any of the catastrophes that have hit the country in recent months. This is why the NDP is having an image problem, why it cannot get people to trust it. The first "surge forward" preceded catastrophe after catastrophe. The second "surge forward" is unlikely to fare any better. * The writer is a political analyst and assistant managing editor of Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya
