Is a resumption of the reform process still a possible option, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed A deep rift now separates the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) from the major opposition parties, creating an extremely negative dynamic at this critical juncture in Egypt's modern history. How to go about healing the breach? What is certain is that there can be no turning back to the situation as it was last October, before President Hosni Mubarak proposed reforming the political process. It is equally certain that things cannot move forward as long as no agreement is reached. Can the standoff be resolved in a "rational" manner that draws on past experience to avoid the worst? It would of course be overly optimistic to believe that a basic transformation has already occurred. But we should also be aware that the situation can still be salvaged. In a bid to defuse the crisis, Gamal Mubarak, head of the NDP Policies Committee, announced that a new package of reforms will be presented to the People's Assembly before the end of the present session. In a best case scenario, all the protagonists would admit their share of responsibility for the present state of affairs, thereby paving the way to the eventual resumption of talks. This entails adopting a more positive and farsighted approach, and the recognition by all concerned that they have every interest in re- opening channels of communication without further delay. The opposition is led by a bloc of three parties: the Tagammu, Wafd and Nasserist parties. Each has its own specific ideology, its historical legacy and its distinct political programme. Other than their joint decision to boycott the 25 May referendum, there is little in common between the three parties. There are serious points of contention between them, and their current meeting of minds over the question of the referendum will not bring about a long-term rapprochement. For example, on the important question of how to deal with the Muslim Brothers, the Tagammu and the Wafd are uncompromisingly opposed to having any dealings with the organisation, while the Nasserite Party is more open- minded. What is worth noting is that the three parties do not aspire to create a common front against the other parties. On the contrary, they strive to become a pole of attraction, not of repulsion, for other political formations. They want to make it clear that ideological differences do not exclude cooperation and dealing with each other. The Tagammu and Nasserite parties adopt a position closer to the left while the Wafd is more liberal and closer to the centre right. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the left has suffered a severe setback to the global level. So contradictions between these various parties are not expected to disappear in any foreseeable future. That is precisely what the ruling party is banking on. It believes that while the three parties spearheading what seems to be a united opposition front have reached a meeting of the minds over the issue of boycotting the referendum, their honeymoon will be short-lived as the contradictions between them rise to the fore. According to this logic, they cannot maintain their present state of solidarity, and the best way to encourage their fragmentation is to ignore their present common moves. As to the Muslim Brothers, they first announced that they supported President Mubarak's nomination for president, in the hope that this would induce the government to recognise them as a legal party opposing the other opposition parties that were challenging the regime and calling for the rotation of power. When they realised the government had no intention of according them legal status, they changed tactics, and joined their voice to the tripartite opposition bloc's call to boycott any dialogue with the government. Meanwhile, the Judges' Club met in extraordinary session to express frustration at the judiciary's lack of any real authority over the election process. Announcing that they were not ready to serve as a fig leaf for the regime, they declared their solidarity with the rest of the opposition forces and their boycott of the 25 May referendum. Thus emerged an opposition grouping which claimed it represented the Egyptian nation. As these historical events wee unfolding on Egyptian soil, intensive talks were being conducted in Washington between US officials and Egypt's prime minister, who met separately with President George W Bush, Vice- President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Egyptian media reported that Bush expressed his appreciation for the political and economic reforms undertaken by Egypt and his hope that more reforms would be forthcoming. Since reform is not conceivable if wide sections of Egyptian society insist on boycotting the elections, Bush's remarks should be interpreted as a call for genuine reform measures, including the removal of restrictions on candidacy to allow the holding of free and fair elections in which contenders are judged solely on their merits. The Bush administration's proposal to have international observers monitor the elections elicited mixed responses from Egyptian officials, with some saying they were not opposed to the idea and others that this would be an infringement on Egypt's sovereignty. One way out of this sticky situation would be for former US President Jimmy Carter, who has already established his credentials as a fair and impartial supervisor of election processes in several countries and who will be in Palestine monitoring elections there, say he had come to supervise elections in the Middle East in general and bring his team to Egypt to supervise the presidential and parliamentary elections that will be held at about the same time. This would be a face-saving way out of the situation, as Egypt would not be seen as specifically targeted. Lessons could be drawn from the ways modes of struggle have evolved, especially as a consequence of political circles being isolated from the wide masses, and their attempts to invent new approaches better adapted to the needs of the times. Demonstrations have changed. Those with a national character revolve around the Palestinian problem, then the war against Iraq and end up by calling for change and the amendment of the constitution. What is new in the ranks of the resistance movement nowadays is the importance given to the issue of democracy and the social dimension, without neglecting the issue of imperialism and of solidarity with Iraq and the Palestinian Intifada.
