Khaled Mohieddin is the Tagammu's candidate for presidency in the forthcoming elections. Mohamed Sid-Ahmed comments The amendment of the constitution to allow more than one candidate to run for president faced all the political parties in Egypt with a quandary, especially that they had very little time before the scheduled date of the elections to launch an effective campaign. As far as the Tagammu was concerned, there were only tow options: either to nominate its candidate and try to run a campaign with the largest possible mobilisation despite the time constraint, or to boycott the process altogether. There was no question of sitting on the sidelines; a neither-nor alternative would be political suicide and a declaration of bankruptcy on a vital issue. The opposite of participating in the elections is not merely to abstain from participating, but to conduct a systematic process of boycotting them. Some might contend that this could be looked upon as opting for a non-democratic approach. But to paraphrase Hamlet, democracy is to be or not to be. Either the rules of the game apply to all concerned, or do not apply at all. We are still in a period of reform. As all parties admit, we are now at a transitional stage of establishing the rules. As long as no agreement is reached, no one will accept that one party be entitled to enjoy privileges that others are not. As matters now stand, the ruling party, which calls itself "the party of the majority", does enjoy a privileged status. Despite this lopsided state of affairs, the Tagammu, the party of the Egyptian Left, decided to play it constructively, while admitting that the rules of the game, as now applied, do not work to its advantage. The decision proceeds from the assumption that taking part in the elections is not only a means to an end, but an end in itself. What is at stake is not the implementation of partisan plans and ambitions, but the chance to put forward the vision of the Egyptian left, as an alternative to the line proposed by the state, and to work for its implementation through democratic channels. By polarising discontent, it is transforming it from ferment to turmoil into energy spent constructively. Moreover, the general political climate is not necessarily to the disadvantage of forces attributed to the left. It is no accident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is visiting Egypt for the first time these days. No Russian president has visited Egypt since Khrushtchev came 40 years ago to celebrate the inauguration of the High Dam. It is also no accident that Putin visited Egypt shortly after the conference of Third World countries in Bandung. The initial Bandung conference, held exactly half a century ago, was the point of departure for movements of national liberation in Asia and Africa after the end of World War II. A theory propounded in the aftermath of 9/11 was that the collapse of the Soviet Union had dealt a crushing blow to the left at the global level and was forcing it to resort to terrorism on an unprecedented scale. Today we are witnessing a new polarisation between right and left following a period when the lines of demarcation between them were blurred. it is now clear that the left had not been marginalised and that an alternative policy is emerging signalling widespread discontent with the existing world order. Despite Gamal Abdel-Nasser's pioneering role in the Non-Aligned movement, he was identified in Western eyes as part of the Soviet sphere of influence. But relations between Cairo and Moscow were often strained, plummeting to an all- time low in the wake of Iraq's Tammaz Revolution in 1958, when Abdel-Nasser accused the Soviets of supporting the Iraqi Communists at the expense of Soviet-Egyptian friendship. An important factor in healing the rift and re- invigorating relations between Cairo and Moscow was their cooperation in the construction of the High Dam. This joint venture between the two sides went far towards offsetting the ideological discord between Abdel-Nasser's pan- Arabism and Soviet "internationalism". Khaled Mohieddin had a serious clash with Abdel-Nasser over the issue of democracy, which reached a peak in March 1954. He called for the Free Officers to return to their barracks and abandon power to what we now call "civil society". The governing Revolutionary Command Council, whose other members sided with Abdel- Nasser, decided to punish Mohieddin for his intransigence by sending him into exile. Shortly after the 1952 Revolution, Mohieddin joined the Peace Movement and worked to establish relations with opposition figures in Israel who not only opposed its Zionist governments but also called for a just and peaceful settlement of the Arab- Israeli conflict. As a peace advocate, he always stood against weapons of mass destruction and has been a staunch supporter of Mubarak's call for the nuclear disarmament of the Middle East. Mohieddin is a devout believer who rigorously observes all the strictures of his faith, not only when he is in Egypt but even when abroad and has been known to fast during Ramadan in such unlikely places as Cuba. He has had a Marxist upbringing and believes in Scientific Socialism, but this does not mean that he supports all policies conducted in its name. For example, he strongly condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Tagammu is the Egyptian opposition party which has always endorsed the Free Officers' pan-Arab unity line. In this respect, it differs with the policies of the Muslim Brothers, who put religion before politics and Islam as a political objective before pan-Arabism. What of the so-called Kifaya (Enough) movement? It is obviously effective in terms of agitation and in launching slogans attractive to the man in the street. But can such a mode of politics replace action conducted in a systematically organised manner? Kifaya is actually expressing a cry of denial, deep feelings of protest and frustration. Party politics can appear to be simple and easily accessible to the wide public. But, in actual fact they are more complex than meets the eye, the culmination of a lengthy process of trying to discern reality in all its complex dimensions and avoid deviations such as adventurism and/or defeatism. In the light of all these considerations, the nomination of Mohieddin as the candidate of the left for presidency is a good choice. It does not put him against party leader Rifaat Said, but strengthens the idea of a functional distribution of roles transcending any personal considerations. In this respect, it is a lesson for everybody. Mohieddin has his own constituencies derived from his personal history, which predates his Tagammu identity as one of the nine leaders of the initial Revolutionary Command Council. Said has the party machinery in hand. More than any other party in Egypt, the Tagammu has its inner coherence, its ability to work collectively. The coming days are a test of the party's vitality.
