Political reform is not a process that can be hi-jacked to serve personal goals, writes Ibrahim Nafie President Hosni Mubarak has reassured us repeatedly that reform and development is an ongoing and comprehensive process that aims at securing a better future for Egypt and the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, some forces in society are attempting to turn the climate of change to personal advantage. Some insist on treating reform as a piecemeal process in order to advance projects of their own. Others appear bent on disseminating discontent and unrest on the pretext that the process is not quick enough or that the measures taken are wrong. What, one wonders, do these forces have to gain by propelling the country to chaos? Sustained reform is by definition a cumulative process. If we are to build on our accomplishments we must strike a delicate balance between change and stability. Reform has to be carefully paced so that society can absorb the changes and proceed forward with unity. Clearly, too, it cannot be channelled towards the benefit of a specific group or sector of society at the expense of the broader swath of the population. Above all, it must be a domestically driven process, consistent with our cultural values, tailored to our needs and aspirations and drawing on available resources. Brazilian President Lula da Silva, at the helm of one of Latin America's most successful programmes of democratic, social and economic reform, offers insights into the required spirit. In his interview with the Al-Ahram team during its tour of Latin American countries last month, he said: "In many cases when we get to power we cannot do everything we want and have to settle for what we can do. Brazil covers an area of some 8.5 million square kilometres. But we realise that we are a country of limited resources and we cannot spend beyond our means." In other words, ambition has to be tempered by realism. Then, in response to the question as to whether the Brazilian venture offers a model for other countries, he said: "I do not claim that the Brazilian Labour Party offers a model that can be emulated by others. In political matters people have to draw on their own history and political culture. They cannot adopt a model that is not of their own making. Certainly, however, open-mindedness in the domestic political debate and the fullest possible exercise of democracy has enabled the Brazilian Labour Party to become a strong and great party. This has had a highly favourable impact on Brazil's neighbours." Egypt is building its own model for domestic reform. Its goal is to arrive at a system of government that conforms with general standards for democracy and at the same time with Egypt's cultural traits and values. This process will continue, regardless of the obstacles, and it will do so through an ongoing dialogue that engages all legitimate political parties and all ideological and political trends. The timeframe for all this is, naturally, crucial, especially for a country of Egypt's regional weight. In spite of the considerable progress we have already made in the political, economic and social realms, some hold that we need to step up the pace. Regardless of the pros and cons of this matter, what is important is that they are aired in the rational give and take of the national dialogue, not used as a pretext for inciting unrest. Some forces imagine that they can gain an upper hand by hiding behind outside powers which they believe are pressuring Egypt to adopt certain measures. If so, they are deluding themselves. Washington's discourse on spreading democracy in the Arab world is primarily targeted for domestic consumption in the US where the American public is clamoring to understand why US forces are mired in Iraq now that it has been established beyond doubt that the Saddam Hussein regime never possessed weapons of mass destruction. These forces should bear in mind that Egyptian-US relations remain strong. These relations operate according to rules and principles that allow the two sides to work together to advance their interests while tolerating differences of opinion on a range of issues. In this Egyptian-US relations are the same as the bilateral relations many Latin American countries have with the US. Chile and Mexico have close trade links with the US yet they voted against the American sponsored UN Security Council resolution to use military force against Iraq. Brazil may be the US's leading trading partner in South America but this did not prevent Brasilia from turning down Washington's request to attend the first Arab-Latin American summit as an observer. Brazil, too, is in the vanguard of the movement of South-South cooperation, strenuously promoting a multi-polar world order as an alternative to US monopolar hegemony. The majority of countries in the world do not conduct foreign relations through harangues and impulsive actions intended to sate the irrational instincts of a minority audience. Rather, they strive to further their interests through constructive interplay with their partners that takes into account diverse conditions and restraints. This applies all the more to Egyptian-US bilateral relations which, after all, is a relationship between a major regional power and a major international power. Over the years the two sides have learned to manage their differences in a manner that keeps their complex relationship on an even keel. I would advise those who think they can advance themselves by pulling American strings to stop deluding themselves and to join the drive to reform in a purely Egyptian spirit. May I also take this occasion to remind them that President Bush has said that he looks forward to Egypt steering the process of democratic transition in the region. It is an exciting challenge and one to which Egyptians naturally aspire. To achieve this we must work together calmly and steadily within the framework of national dialogue and avoid the irresponsible behaviour that only jeopardises our security and stability.
