Definite if gradual steps must be taken towards reform: it is in the national interest, writes Gamal Zayda* There are people in this country who are worried that the state apparatus may disintegrate under the pressure of political and constitutional reform. Bureaucrats and senior politicians seem genuinely concerned that this country may go the way of the former Soviet Union. Such people advise us to retain the status quo, offering a barrage of arguments. One argument is that the Egyptian people have experienced democracy only fleetingly. For most of our history, all the way back to Pharaonic times, the country was run by individuals with unlimited power. Another argument is that illiteracy runs at 40 per cent, and that as a result the political judgement of the nation as a whole is impaired. A third argument is that, given the current rates of illiteracy and corruption, foreigners may find a way -- through funding and other means -- of controlling the presidency and consequently the country. A fourth is that the Muslim Brotherhood may score a landslide factory in a repeat of what happened in Algeria in the early 1990s. The Muslim Brotherhood, it is feared, may try to impose its own vision of a theological state and thus imperil the country's modern future. A theological state, needless to say, is a serious menace in today's world, a world of equality for all regardless of colour, race and creed; regardless even of sexual leanings. President Hosni Mubarak, for one, is categorically opposed to the creation of religious parties. Recently, public debate has focussed on the steps needed for reform. Is it enough, some wonder, to amend Article 76 of the constitution, or should we look into other articles as well? Many have voiced the fear that sweeping reforms may curtail the power of the presidency, the mainstay of our current political system. Since 1952, the president has been the key to decision-making in this country. Our parliaments, including the current one, defer to the power of the presidency. Many would say that many of these parliaments were fraudulently elected. What is clear is that for the past 50 years no Egyptian parliament has meaningfully challenged the presidency or the government. And we cannot fault the "silent majority" for shunning politics. With an electoral process lacking in probity and transparency, public apathy is understandable; the regime seems capable of gaining a comfortable majority in any elections it may hold. Many are wondering if current reforms are stimulated by external or internal pressure. The point is moot. Reform, by its very nature, is a result of internal, regional and international circumstances. Since 11 September, the US has shifted its foreign policy in the region, abandoning its traditional reliance on autocratic leaders. Such leaders, the US now believes, are a potential threat to US interests, for their style of government seems to have given rise to Osama Bin Laden's type of radicalism. The US is now pressuring Arab countries in matters of democracy, political reform and human rights. This pressure, needless to say, is welcomed by local reformers. I believe that President Mubarak has opened the door for a full-fledged rejuvenation of Egypt's political system and that all parties in this country should make good use of this opportunity. According to a recent article by Steven Cook in Foreign Affairs, the US is re-thinking its policy yet again. President George W Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are not pressing blindly for reform at the moment. Punitive measures, such as political isolation, sanctions or invasion, haven't been that fruitful. In Iraq's case, for example, democracy is fragile, with one major element of the country's political mosaic -- the Sunnis -- left out. Supporting civil society hasn't accomplished much from the US point of view, nor has foreign economic aid. Civil society groups have failed to deliver. In Egypt, the National Council for Human Rights is still under government control and has lost international credibility as a result. Other civil rights organisations don't seem to be operating in a democratic manner. Cook admits that Washington's attempt to boost civil society groups in Egypt has backfired, as many activists wish to distance themselves from the US for obvious reasons. Let's not worry much about external pressure. Such pressure may come and go, but the real motive for reform is and must remain domestic. Besides, external pressure for reform may encourage opportunists to bank on their foreign connections, as Ibrahim Nafie, Al-Ahram 's editor-in-chief and chairman of the board, pointed out in a recent article. What the nation needs is consensus on political and constitutional reform, but first we have to get over the concerns I mentioned earlier. Our history of democracy may be brief, but times have changed. Over the past few years, communications have undergone a revolution and anything that happens in any part of the world is instantaneously relayed everywhere else. The days of the Berlin Wall are gone. With satellite television and the Internet keeping nations in touch, the value of transparency and accountability is no longer to be ignored. Illiteracy, however widespread, is no excuse. India, one of the leading democracies of our time, has millions of illiterate. Democracy is the only way through which we could hold our governments accountable. There has been ample time since 1952 to eradicate illiteracy, but successive governments have failed to do so. There has been ample time to improve education, and yet not one Egyptian university is on the list of the world's top 500 educational institutions (Labib Al-Sibaei has written repeatedly in Al-Ahram on that topic). Democracy comes with a price. Some people may try to buy votes while outsiders may try to meddle, and corruption may twist the outcome. But we have to keep our eye on the goal. We have to insist on achieving political and constitutional reform. We'll run into snags, but none that our long-standing judiciary and law-enforcement services cannot deal with. Everyone must be allowed to compete freely in any coming elections. Even those who have been forced to go underground must be encouraged to come back. Which is better: to have everyone working in broad daylight or scheming in the dark? The Muslim Brotherhood can contest the elections. President Mubarak has made it clear that they can do so through civil parties. It is wrong for the Brotherhood to create a religious party, for this, I believe, may drive a wedge between Muslims and Christians in this country. Let's go about reform in a gradual manner. Let the nation agree that reform be undertaken within a specific period -- 10 years for example. Amendment of Article 76 is not enough for constitutional reform. National dialogue must be conducted among all parties and groups in this country with the aim of defining political and constitutional reform. External pressure is a poor excuse. External pressure is not to be ruled out, but very few people in this country are calling for US-style reforms. The way forward is through self-reliance. If the nation agrees on reform, it would be able to stand up to any foreign pressure -- from Washington or the EU. We reject foreign custodianship; we did so throughout our history. But we have to act on reform before it is too late. We have to act on reform before the leaders of the G8 and NATO bring it to our door. * The writer is deputy editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram .
