With jailed Al-Ghad Party leader Ayman Nour languishing in prison, the party's Secretary-General is holding the fort. She spoke to Shaden Shehab of the crisis, and the party's demands When the Political Parties Committee suddenly approved the formation of Al-Ghad Party, people speculated about some sort of deal with the government. Now that party leader Ayman Nour is in jail, the speculation is that the party crossed some red lines. Where's the truth? Just like everyone, we find ourselves wondering about the party's sudden legitimisation and then the arrest of its leader less than 90 days later; we don't understand the abruptness in both cases. Our application had previously been rejected four times. We had to go to court twice; the third time we believed the court was going to rule in our favour. Right before the court's verdict, which was supposed to be on 6 November, the Political Parties Committee called us in to present our programme. Ayman Nour, [Al-Ghad deputy chairman] Moussa Mustafa Moussa and myself went, and they were extremely courteous with us. Did the committee give you any "advice"? Nothing -- nothing at all in this domain. What do you think of the charges against Nour? All the applications were at the Political Parties Committee; the last applications we presented included 600 members. Their names were published in the papers, so if there were any legal mistakes, they had all the time to speak up. I think all this happened because every time the party applied, it had a different name and different members. Are these 600 names the ones in question? I don't know. The party formation law stipulates that there should be at least 50 members, 50 per cent of whom should be labourers and peasants. We had many more than that, so we did not need to [fabricate names]. The government said Ayman did this to show how popular he was, but he didn't need that either, since he is extremely popular in parliament where people watch him on TV, and he is extremely popular in his constituency [Bab Al- Shaaria], and these are the people -- the masses and the people in his constituency -- who have been loyal to him for the past ten years because he has rendered them so many services. Ayman Nour has called the case against him a hoax. He said it's the most infamous case in Egypt's modern history. What's your take? I am not setting aside that there might have been some mismanagement in the [membership] applications. I have always called this party the new generation "Internet party" because it uses all the new tools and skills the technology revolution has afforded; and that's how most members joined -- not all, but most, came through this mechanism. Ayman is convinced that this was done to prevent him from participating in the national dialogue, but I don't think that's the reason. I went to the national dialogue meeting as the acting chairman and I said exactly what he had proposed; nobody stopped me, and the documents that Ayman and the party members wanted to submit were presented. I was only allowed to elaborate on them for 15 minutes, of course, which doesn't allow you to say a lot, but I said the main points. We believe that everyone, including the NDP -- and this was quite evident during the national dialogue -- recognises that substantial reform is necessary. [Still,] there is a significant gap between the NDP and most opposition parties. The NDP prefers long-term change, whereas opposition views have converged on a more ambitious constitutionalist agenda, and notably a demand for the amendment of the undemocratic portions of the 1971 constitution regarding executive selections and prerogatives, apart from the economic aspect that we are still a socialist country, and so on. Did your party call for amending the constitution before the upcoming presidential referendum? The key to political reform should be the amendment of the constitution, and reform in its real sense is political, economic and social reform combined. The timing of the amendment is where we differed [with the National Democratic Party (NDP)]. Did you propose that it happen before or after? We did not go really into details. We said the constitution needed to be amended so the elections could be a real opening for the liberalisation of the system. We presented a draft constitution for 2005, not to impose it, but as a way of opening the debate on what the amendments should be like. We could have accepted different timing, but the party just wanted to show it had done its homework; that we are not just crying wolf all the time, or just opposing for the sake of opposing. Is that how the government sees you? The government should cultivate parties they can cooperate with, because sooner or later they will not be able to control the whole situation alone. They should be prepared [because] monopoly of power in this day and age is not possible. One of the NDP's main problems is that they have never been an opposition party. We believe in, and call for, a more inclusive political system that will effectively incorporate Egyptian youth. We want it to instill a true sense of belonging and inclusion, [since there is] great benefit from a real debate on the content of reform, as opposed to a sterile confrontation of rival monologues. We believe that the absence of effective means for citizens to express their will peacefully is potentially harmful for both citizens and the regime. The Al-Ghad Party called for changing the referendum system, but did not oppose President Hosni Mubarak winning another term. Others have hit harder, so why were Ayman Nour's feathers clipped in such a manner? We are absolutely not against Mubarak. Nour was only doing his job as a parliamentarian, and [his speeches] are aired on TV. [Presidential Chief of Staff] Zakaria Azmi, who is the most brilliant of parliamentarians, criticises the government more than anybody else, and very objectively. Nour did not do anything extraordinary, but he did present the draft amendment of the constitution. Do you think Nour is being set up as an example for those who would cross "red lines"? I think the country is not ready at this time to accept any opposition to the status quo. What was Nour's relationship with the Egyptian Popular Movement for Change or Kifaya ? He was not a member, but he might have participated in one of their conferences or meetings -- but not as a party leader, because we refused to participate in any of these coalitions. Are there any direct contacts with security officials regarding Nour's case? I have contacted a top government official who said the case is in honest hands and will be dealt with, with the utmost integrity. We have announced that President Mubarak has nothing to do with this case, and personally, I think he is not very happy with the dimension it has taken. Authorities should realise that it is not in the interest of political reform that an incident like this should take place now. We are critical of the procedure and alacrity with which his immunity was stripped, and we hope the speaker of parliament will not cause any internal dissension in the party. There are rumours that former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright made some sort of deal with Nour that antagonised some government officials? We are a party that is very critical of Egypt's alignment with Washington, as we feel that effective independence from the US may be at risk. We are all against the present US administration's heavy-handed admonitions to reform. We want reform to be a homegrown effort. The US would help the reform cause best by vigorously pursuing a just settlement of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, and bringing an end to the Iraqi occupation. Mrs Albright came to Cairo as the head of a reform task force; this task force was made up of ten Arabs and four Egyptians -- Abdel- Moneim Said, Dr Osama El-Ghazali Harb, Ambassador Abdel-Raouf El-Ridi and Dr Hala Mustafa. Ayman Nour had nothing to do with this task force, as his English is very poor. He did meet Albright, but he never spoke with her. He just said hello in a meeting where there were 25 other people. So why did the State Department and the US press lash out so angrily against the government in Nour's favour? This is American policy. They always like to have contacts with the opposition parties. It is a well-known assignment at American embassies. They have been meeting with everybody, different parties, and they even meet with the NDP. What they [Americans] are saying now about reform, [Egyptian] reformers have been saying for the past 20 years, but no one was listening. It was more in their interest to support dictators like Saddam Hussein. How accurate are the reports about dissension in your party's ranks? We feel like internal divisions are being provoked. We get contradictory new messages everyday telling us who "they" want and don't want. We have even been told that there is an agreement being worked out between parliamentary speaker [Fathi Sorour] and Ayman Nour via a go-between who is asking for the removal of some people from the party. We really wonder why these kinds of attempts should be made. Rather, the NDP should encourage new parties; we were hoping the NDP would realise it is to their benefit to work with significant segments of the opposition. There is no point in marginalising people and parties, particularly when we are all working for progress towards a more liberal system. Who is the mediator? He is an unidentified mutual friend of Nour's and Sorour's; he works in tourism, and it appears that this is what they have in mind -- that in return for his release, Ayman should get rid of some people in the party. Which people? We do not know yet. What's your view on the tens of party members who have resigned? The resignations came from Al- Qalyubiya; they were opposed to a certain party individual -- Ragab Hemeida -- but now everything is back to normal. But weren't they criticising Nour, not Hemeida? They denied that, but it's normal in a party for everyone to want to climb the hierarchical ladder. We are hanging on strong because we want the party to go on. Its future belongs to the members. This is their challenge today -- whether or not to continue -- because it is not a party for one individual. For the past few days every decision was taken collectively. What about reports that Nour intended to run for the presidency with American backing? This is as new to me as it probably is to most of the 70 million Egyptians. I am not aware of his speaking on such an issue; if he had, he would be running as an individual, and not as the leader of the party, since doing so is not in accordance with the party's internal regulations. He would have to get the party's approval, [even running as an individual]. And I don't think he has a chance in any case. As for foreign intervention, we refuse any, even with good intentions. What about allegations that the party chose the colour orange as a tie in to the "Orange revolution" in Ukraine? The colour orange was chosen a year and a half before the Ukraine situation. Our slogan is the rising sun, and the colour of the sun is orange, not yellow or blue. What about the party's mouthpiece that was supposed to appear on newsstands yesterday, its chief editor being Ibrahim Eissa of the defunct Al-Destour? We will start by issuing it weekly, not daily. Naturally, it's going to reflect the party's ideological orientation. What's the next step for Al-Ghad? There's going to be a conference on Sunday, jointly organised by the party and the Press Syndicate Freedoms Committee. It's not meant to be a popular rally, but a discussion of the dimensions of the case. Several prominent figures -- such as Kamal Abul-Magd, Adel Eid, and Amir Salem -- are participating.
