Omayma Abdel-Latif meets Aziz Sidqi, the man who convinced opposition groups to bury long-held hatchets and unite Aziz Sidqi has had a tough couple of weeks. The 85-year-old former prime minister has been the driving force behind the painstaking negotiations during which groups from across the political spectrum have been hammering out their ideological -- and often personal -- differences. The result is the latest, and most catholic, reform movement so far: the United National Front for Change (UNFC). Seemingly overnight, his consultancy office in Zamalek became a melting pot of Egypt's varied opposition groups as Sidqi struggled to help them overcome long-standing feuds and unite behind a common reform agenda. He succeeded and, thanks to Sidqi's initiative, the united front finally emerged earlier this week. Sidqi, who also heads the National Coalition for Democratic Transformation, speaks to Al-Ahram Weekly about the new alliance and its prospects for success After two weeks of working to reach a consensus what impact do you think the alliance will have on calls for reform? The significance of forming an alliance of so many groups and political parties should not be underestimated. We established the front in order to press for reform at a time when the situation in the country is worse than it has ever been. At such a time change cannot be about personalities but about policies. And the only force capable of pressuring the regime into changing policies is a united opposition. But what if past differences between the groups under the UNFC umbrella reemerge to jeopardise opposition unity? There are guiding principles to which every member will adhere though each, of course, has the right to maintain its ideological character. What I found was that more often than not it was personal feuds that were standing in the way of opposition groups uniting to press for change rather than unbridgeable ideological differences. Our political culture personalises issues and this has left its mark on the relationship between political parties as well as contributing to the overall political impasse we are facing. I repeatedly told people that our goals are more important than personal differences and it is worth the effort to pursue them. We made it clear that this is not an electoral alliance. The elections are a temporary issue, and because they are so close we are naturally coordinating our efforts in contesting them. But our goals go beyond the elections. The coalition has been formed to fight both corruption and political despotism. The UNFC has managed to attract representatives from across the political spectrum. But will it be able to translate that into parliamentary seats? Will it be able to end the NDP's monopoly of the Assembly? Coordinating an election campaign is only the first in a long list of tasks. And we must be realistic. The front has been formed just a few weeks ahead of the poll, which is very little time, though certainly we hope that our efforts will translate into a good election result. We hope to increase the opposition's share of seats in the new parliament to more than the 42 they won in 2000. No one assumes the opposition is going to win a majority of seats. What we are seeking is to restore some kind of balance to parliament. That balance has been absent from the political equation for too long, leading to the unjustified dominance of the NDP. The lack of popular engagement in the political developments of the past year has perplexed many. Why do you think movements for change have failed to attract a grassroots following? On the contrary, I think people's reactions have been remarkable. We all know that we will succeed in reaching our goals only if we attract popular support to our reform agenda, though mobilising the masses is no easy task in a country like Egypt. But there are signs that people are beginning to question their own roles, and the role of political parties, and if we manage to get them to participate in our activities this will be a major achievement. People's apathy may initially have been a product of fear but then it became a habit to remain silent. We want people to express themselves sufficiently forcefully that our rulers have no option but to address their demands. In Egypt the pressure for change had reached such a level that the regime had to claim it was seeking change even though it was not working towards it in any genuine way. So popular efforts have already borne fruit though they are only at the beginning and we have a long way to go before reaching the stage where the wishes of the people become decisive in determining the direction of reform. Do you think the government will attempt to undermine opposition efforts to unite? I have not a shadow of a doubt that they will. It is only natural that they will seek to do so. They will publish false news about the front here and there. It is a game we understand well. But can the front withstand a concerted campaign against it? If the front is able to reflect the will of the people, then it can withstand both the government and the regime. As for internal disputes, as I stated, there are guiding principles that will avoid such disputes if they are followed. And those who are unhappy inside the front can always leave. Differences can always occur, and if people are unwilling to compromise then they can depart. The front will continue to operate as an entity. Some Western analysts blame the opposition for failing to capitalise on the momentum building behind reform. Do you think the opposition is an impediment to genuine reform? I think the opposition has been completely marginalised. This sorry state of affairs has to be contextualised. For two decades now the opposition has been prevented from operating freely by every possible means. The opposition is weak and it is in crisis, and this is the fault of the ruling party and the regime. Do you think the regime is genuine about reform? No. The reforms they have enacted in recent months have not changed the political system, nor were they intended to. They were meant to be window- dressing, for the West and, particularly, for Washington. Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood should be allowed to become a political party? Of course. They are a significant political force so why exclude them? Though they are legally banned they operate like any other political force, and they are more active in the street than any other political party. Why should they be denied the right to operate legally?
