Hossam Badrawi, a leading member of the National Democratic Party's influential Policies Committee, talks to Shaden Shehab about the obstacles of the present, and plans for the future The National Democratic Party (NDP) platform seems to have adopted policies that go against things the party has advocated for the past 24 years. Does this mean the NDP is acknowledging and trying to correct its own mistakes? Today's policies do not contradict prior ones. Acknowledging reform means that you know that as life changes and standards change, policies have to change accordingly. Stagnation is the enemy of development. The NDP has been working on different policies since 2002. What's happening now is that the president -- as part of his campaign -- announced and documented these policies for the first time as part of an action plan with a time frame, as a commitment for his next term. Mubarak has repeatedly acknowledged that combating unemployment -- which is at anywhere between 10 and 30 per cent -- is his most important and serious challenge. He says that over the next six years, he plans to create about 4.5 million job opportunities. Isn't that a bit too ambitious? Over the last 15 years, nine million jobs were created. Meanwhile, over the last 20 years the population grew by almost 30 million. That's a faster growth rate than in China. The target we've set is higher than previous levels because the environment and infrastructure that we have today can sustain it. What do you mean by the environment? Encouraging people to invest in Egypt, and not in Dubai or Jordan or anywhere else. Things like reducing taxes from 42 to 20 per cent, like making the investment authority more competent, changing customs duties -- all of this is creating a proper environment for people to invest. We expect the private sector to build a thousand factories in the coming years, and the state will facilitate and create the proper environment for that. For every million tourists we get, 200,000 jobs are created. These things have been very well calculated. Why wasn't the emergency law lifted as part of this new way of thinking? There is always a right time to do things. The emergency law was adopted in an emergency situation; the problem is getting out of the emergency situation. We are trying to do so by improving the competence of the security apparatus. Better security means fewer innocent people will be exposed to problems. Let me give you an example: if there are 10 people in a room and there is a murder, then you might arrest all of them. If you have a higher security standard, then you might just arrest one or two. Recently, a lot of different people have been very vocal about ending this emergency state. There's no reason for us to insist on and defend it when so many people are demanding its abolishment. A build-up of internal and external factors has resulted in this happening today and not yesterday. So why is the security apparatus still arresting scores of people in Sinai? It is the right time [to lift the emergency law] because of that. We should have transparency and lift the emergency state so as not to allow an imbalance between security and human rights. Other candidates promised to free political prisoners. Why didn't President Mubarak say anything about this? If the emergency law is lifted, then there will be no legitimate reason to keep them in prison. Is there a tug-of-war going on within the party between reformists and the old guard? It is not a tug-of-war, but there is resistance, because people sometimes think that taking risks is wrong. I think taking calculated risks is right. I don't see it as a fight or struggle, but more like the development of a new generation with new ideas, more connected to the world, speaking a global language and planning for the future. It is extremely difficult to change if the people are the same. What we need is a transitional stage, which I see happening now, which requires courage and wisdom. I believe that President Mubarak can provide that platform, but at the same time, his executives have to change for the transition to occur. It has to be legitimate; it's not about allowing the more powerful or the highest voice to impose their opinions. There must be balance in society to allow transition without chaos. That is what we are trying to do. Was the NDP campaign representative of this new way of thinking, and is the old guard being left out of it? I would rather call them older leaders than the old guard. In any case, President Mubarak was directly responsible for the campaign, and there was a complete separation between the campaign and party [matters]. The party [leaders] provide general policies and work with the administration. We work with the development of policies, and on talking to the public, and the media. What you saw was [a by-product of] the president's courage to become involved in a totally new way of handling elections. Now the president is asking for the people's trust. He is offering commitments and a time frame, and he is saying if you elect me, I will do this and that. It used to be about people pleading with him to stay on as president and promising him their soul and blood. This is a culture we want to change. Why did Gamal Mubarak keep a low profile during the campaign? In any campaign, the candidate is the star. We all tried to enhance that. We had to make sure that [Mubarak] was the star, so attention would not be diverted. At the end of the day we were running a campaign for the president, so all of us [kept] a low profile. What was the president's "new look" all about? The president was always [swamped] in presidential matters, with all the security and formalities. What we tried to do -- and this was the president's idea -- was distance him from that, so that he could be himself; that's the way people should look at him, because that is his reality. He is very simple and close to the people, and when you are running in an election, you definitely want to be casual, because it is very hot, and just like other people, he takes off his tie. So the intention was not to make him look younger? It's not a matter of younger, but making clear that this is a capable person, and he did that beautifully. He went from one place to another everyday and mingled with people, giving speeches here and there. It was important to [make clear] that the president is capable, healthy and can move around. It is the best thing to do -- some people don't like that, but you can't please everyone. Why hasn't anything been said about corruption even though it's a major hot button issue for most people? Even though the president's slogan was not "Let's fight corruption", if you look at his platform and consider the international criteria of fighting corruption -- which is not only capturing criminals and sending them to trial, but most importantly transparency and freedom of information -- you'll find that this has been a major part of the president's platform. This is a change of mind set. Some candidates announced who their cabinets would consist of, while the president never hinted at who would stay and who would go in his, even though a lot of people want him to dismiss certain ministers. Why is that? I know that. I see that. I hear that from a lot of people. People cannot trust the change if the same faces are there. I would say that it is clear to me that the wave of change will come. What is your view of change movements like Kifaya, and the violent way they have been dealt with by the security apparatus, which results in a bad image for the NDP -- just like what happened with the referendum? Any group of people acting legitimately within the rule of law should be respected. Under any circumstances, nobody is allowed to violate human rights. The leaders of Kifaya are friends of mine. We talk and discuss, and I understand where they are coming from. They have a right to refuse. If they want to hold a demonstration, they have the right to, as long as they take all the proper legal steps to do that. If security commits violations, that also has to be dealt with according to the law. How about what happened with the referendum? It was unacceptable, and it has to be known that it is unacceptable. Is there a gap between what security wants, and what the NDP or the president want? This is precisely the change of culture that is happening in our society. This is the deeply ingrained way of handling protests. There will be some mistakes, but we have to identify them and deal with them properly. It will take time to adapt. Look at how some people still put up banners using phrases like 'Yes Mubarak', as if there was still a referendum. The president is trying to change the culture from one where people ask the president to stay, to one where the president asks the people to give him their trust. It is a major change, and it will not [bear fruit] in a day or a month, but will take time and will require credibility. NDP officials are always saying the reform process started several years ago. Others are convinced these changes have come about as a result of US "advice" and "threats". What's your take? Saying that is unfair to the Egyptian people. People have been working hard to reform their lives. At the same time we can't ignore that there have been some internal factors, and some external factors, some as a result of changes in the environment, or in education, or standards. But at the end of day it all constitutes pressure to move in one direction. So you are saying there is some kind of pressure. If we don't say that, we would be ignoring a fact of life. When you can see everything happening everywhere via TV screens... if everything is changing around you, and you don't change, you are sick. Some officials were opposing international monitoring of elections; meanwhile, the Presidential Election Commission (PEC) has refused NGO monitoring of the elections. Isn't all this bad for the elections' credibility? To me, international monitoring is good, as long as they announce their standards and indicators and don't end up with everyone offering their own vision. The NDP and the opposition refused international monitoring, in my opinion, because of the accumulated culture that says that this is interference in domestic affairs. There is a conflict in this society. We are asking the judicial system to implement the election process and everybody is screaming about having a judge at every ballot box. If we were going to do that, then every judge would say, "I am the judge; who is going to monitor me?" Look at the international scene. Civil societies take care of the elections; judges are there to judge who is at fault. We have chosen a certain process. The election commission says there is a judge -- who are you to come and say that a judge is wrong or right? Myself and many other people would appreciate and like to see NGOs and the National Council for Human Rights take care of monitoring, both outside and inside. As a member of the National Council of Human Rights, we did that. And we also tried to make that happen with 22 NGOs, to give credibility to the process. What about the possibility of the elections losing its legitimacy if the PEC adamantly refuses to comply with the administrative court ruling allowing NGO monitors? Once the results are out, and the president is chosen, matters end at that. The supreme constitutional court has already ruled that the PEC's decisions overrule any other, be it a court ruling or anything else. It is not like the parliamentary elections, where there is the possibility of people contesting the results and the court ruling for or against. What if the judges say there was rigging, especially considering that so many of their demands for free and fair elections have not been met? Claiming that the elections are rigged before they even take place is not fair. How can I trust what they say if they have already made a preconceived judgment? It's like sentencing somebody without a trial, which is very dangerous. The legitimacy of the elections is safeguarded by the constitution, and everyone should respect that. Did you really consider Ayman Nour and Noaman Gomaa true competition? I saw every candidate as a competitor. Every time a leader loses an election, it's because he didn't see others as competitors -- so we saw every candidate as a [real] competitor. Our evaluation was that we considered the Wafd the main competitor because of its history and structure. Ayman Nour came next. He has his own positives, but Gomaa was getting more attention because he is part of an institution. We always thought that Mubarak had a better chance because of the many things I mentioned. The major one is that people realise Egypt is moving towards another stage. People want to be comfortable that the leader is not going to allow chaos. But at the end of the day we have to respect people's judgment. Didn't the other candidates give off the image that the whole thing was a charade? People don't even remember their names; don't you think this has undermined the image of the elections? No, because this was the first election ever. And again, there is a conflict here, because people had been calling for independents to run, which means that we could have had 1000 candidates instead of 10. But now, because you have legitimate parties involved, the whole process is balancing itself. People realise now that there are two big parties running at the forefront, and that three parties are liberal ones. They also realise that leftists, Nasserists and national parties chose not to run, which means that they cannot face reality. This gives me a sign of where people are most likely to go. Are there any doubts that President Mubarak will win? Yes of course -- otherwise we would not have entered the competition. We have a plan B: what if there is a re-run? If you don't prepare yourself, you will lose. Yes, the president has a better chance, and it is true he is gaining wider public support, but nothing is guaranteed. Why wasn't there any mobilisation aimed at getting people to vote before the elections actually took place? I would say that whatever percentage took part would have to be clearly identified, because it will provide credibility to the elections. In the NDP, and according to Mubarak, legitimacy will increase if everything is run properly -- even if he gets a lesser percentage. Winning elections by 70 per cent is much better than winning 99 per cent via a referendum. So it was up to the public to make their choice. It's time for everyone to choose. We are building capabilities so people can have choices. If they don't, we will lose democracy. People do have choices now. Let us agree that this is a new experience, and that people will see how it goes. It has been said that a president shouldn't stay in power for more than 10 years... That is debatable; in a deep-rooted democracy, terms would be unlimited. In the UK, Thatcher ruled for 18 years before her own party removed her. Blair is there for the third time. It is the people's choice to keep a leader or not. Usually mature democracies do not develop limits. The US developed its democracy in a different way. I prefer limitation of presidential terms, but it is still democratic to stay for a third or fourth term as long as it takes place transparently and according to the public's will.
