Has the NDP Conference brought Egyptians closer together or driven them further apart, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed Having followed the televised proceedings of the NDP's second annual conference closely, not only in my capacity as a columnist in Al- Ahram but also as a member of the Tagammu Party, I was disappointed that the agenda focussed primarily on economic rather than political reform. In the run-up to the conference, the opposition parties issued a joint statement setting down what they consider to be the main priorities in any reform package, but none of their demands were adopted. In the headlong rush towards economic liberalisation, are Egypt's political forces becoming marginalised? Do the opposition parties in our nominally multiparty system stand on an equal footing with the ruling NDP or are they relegated to the status of second-class citizens? True, in his closing address to the conference, President Mubarak said that no single party can hold a monopoly over ideas, orientations and perspectives, which must be open to debate between all sectors of society, including the opposition parties as a constituent element of Egyptian political life. Parties may differ in their views and orientations, but all share the same objective, which is to serve the best interests of the nation and ensure its security and safety. But this pluralistic approach was not reflected in the proceedings of the conference. Any outside observer could not fail to see that the NDP is structured in such a way as to ensure that it can stand as a self-contained integrated whole, a closed system which does not lend itself easily to interaction with and feedback from other political parties. There is thus a contradiction between the structure of Egypt's ruling party and its ability to engage in any meaningful dialogue with the opposition. This contradiction needs to be further investigated and its inconsistencies exposed in a more systematic manner. For example, what are we to understand from the party's "New Thinking"? That it will build its thinking independently from any other party? Or that the ruling party has a thinking of its own? How is it to be distinguished? The relationship of a political party with its constituency, while apparently simple, is in fact a highly complex one. Should the party simply go along with its followers? Should it merely respond to their aspirations or also undertake to educate them politically by inculcating them with certain ideas based on given principles that cannot be described only as "scientific" as one of the speakers at the conference said, but also as "ideological"? The slogan of engaging in a dialogue with other parties is not new. There have been sporadic attempts in that direction but the dialogue, whenever it happened, always remained limited to the top party leaderships and never achieved very much. Moreover, it was a selective dialogue that included only the parties recognised as legal by the state, even if some of the parties excluded from the dialogue have a strong following. It is also no coincidence that opposition parties, despite their different ideological orientations, find themselves in given situations speaking the same language and ready to act together, while all attempts to act in a similar manner with the party in power have failed. The common denominator between the opposition parties is precisely that they are not in power. They might constitute, as the president stated, a "constituent element" in the country's political setup, but the precise meaning of this statement needs to be further elucidated. The opposition parties in Egypt, like their counterparts throughout the world, aspire to power. This is a legitimate aspiration in any multiparty system, where the principles of rotation of power, coalition-building and power- sharing are an integral part of the political process. However, these principles cannot be reconciled with a "multiparty" system in which some parties are more equal than others, where power remains vested exclusively and indefinitely in a single party and where other parties enjoy varying degrees of legitimacy in the buildup of the system. Although this critical issue should have been at the top of the conference agenda, it was conspicuously absent from the discussions. Nevertheless, the question of how far these principles can be reconciled with the political system in force in Egypt imposed itself as the key question put forward by the conference. It is a question that needs to be carefully looked into and the issue resolved in a manner satisfactory to all segments of Egyptian society, not only to supporters of the NDP. There is also the fact that the regional and global environment in which Egypt's political parties are competing is in a state of flux, with many factors hitherto regarded as constants turning out to be impermanent variables. This calls for some creative New Thinking, ideas and initiatives. The priorities of the NDP are not necessarily those of the opposition parties. The opposition parties are unanimous in considering the lifting of the state of emergency and the restoration of constitutional legitimacy as top priorities, while the top priority for the NDP is Egypt's economic difficulties, not its political and institutional problems. The deteriorating situation in the region is a source of deep anxiety not only for the NDP but for the opposition parties as well and it is in the interest of both to join hands in the search for solutions to the multitude of problems threatening the stability of the entire region. Iraq is on the verge of civil war, the Palestinian factions are facing an acute crisis and Sudan's Darfur province is in the throes of horrifying humanitarian tragedy. Can Egypt perform the role expected of it while its internal front remains as fragmented as it is? As to the global situation, it is clear that the opposition parties blame America, and more specifically, the Bush administration, for the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. The war on Iraq and America's unflagging support for the Sharon government have developed an unprecedented degree of hostility towards the US throughout the region. On this, the man in the street who is a member of the NDP is not very different from the man in the street sympathetic to an opposition party. Both are deeply displeased with US policy. The New Thinking that is required at this critical stage should focus on ways of overcoming the contradictions now impeding genuine democratic reforms, not of exacerbating them still further. The NDP conference did not bother to define what its New Thinking will entail nor to explain how far it would differ from forms of thinking traditionally attributed to nationalism and democracy. How can it be possible to develop in detail the mechanisms of how a party will operate in the absence of a clear definition of what that party stands for? How to distinguish what should be preserved and what should be changed when dealing with how the party should conduct its activities? We have already stated that the task of building a party, particularly one with a mass following, is extremely difficult. The party is not called upon only to follow the masses, but nor should it distance itself from them by trying too hard to push them where they may not want to go. A process of positive feedback between the party apparatus and the masses, between the vanguard and the followers, will build the party only to the extent that it underscores what is positive in the activities of both, that lessons are drawn from the failures and successes used as launching pads for further successes. This is a complex process that requires concerted efforts over many years. New thinking must not be just a slogan, but should also be a guide for action, to overcome the state of chaos still prevailing in the political arena and move to a state where available political capabilities are taken advantage of to the utmost. New thinking, and, specifically, the notion of citizenship, cannot flourish in a political environment which lacks equality and equal opportunities for all citizens. Let us therefore compete as thinkers and political activists in determining the features of Egypt's new thinking. Let such initiatives be a test for putting new thinking into practice, let them be open to everybody keen to participate in the process. No one, neither the NPD nor the opposition parties, stands to gain anything by refusing to enter the competition.
