Hassan Nafaa* identifies points of consensus, and divergence, in the great reform debate Political reform tops the list of public concerns, from the government to opposition parties, the as- yet-to-be established parties in the making, independents and the forces of civil society. An endless number of meetings, dialogues, seminars and conferences have been held on the subject, and I have participated in several. The most recent was the Al-Ahram forum on activating the Egyptian reform programme, held at the Palestine Hotel, Alexandria, on 2--3 September, and organised by the Al-Ahram Regional Press Institute in cooperation with the Special International Projects Centre. The intensity of the public focus on reform is reflected in the adoption by Egypt's ruling NDP of the slogan "New Thinking and the Priorities of Reform" for its annual conference. The topic is destined to dominate political life in Egypt for some time and debates will grow more heated the closer we come to the end of President Mubarak's current term in November. A considerable gap exists between reform as envisioned and desired by Egyptian society and reform as perceived by the ruling party and manifested in this year's conference resolutions. The extent and nature of this gap was clearly apparent in the Al-Ahram forum. The forum, it should be stressed, was representative of all shades of the Egyptian political spectrum and the discussions held beneath its umbrella probed all aspects of reform in an attempt to answer questions about why we must reform, what exactly needs reforming, who should undertake the desired reforms and how. Participants were keen to distinguish between what they termed internal and external reasons for reform. Interestingly, that they did not dwell much on the latter was perhaps a reflection of the implicit consensus that reform is, above all, a domestic demand, whatever the opinions of outside parties. In addition, it reflects a common belief that the greater the challenges we face from abroad then the more we must stress our own need to reform and the greater should be our resolve to press ahead with the necessary actions. Reform, implemented according to domestic demands, is the only way in which we will be able to counter the growing external challenges we face. While participants cited a great many reasons for the urgent need for political reform they can all be classified under four main headings. Structurally our government is a system of individuals rather than institutions. It directs rather than rules and it consists of a collection of appointed technocrats rather than elected politicians. There are no clear standards for selection, the allocation of responsibility or jurisdiction across levels, and the result is growing paralysis. It is an incompetent system and can boast only the most paltry achievements. In the realm of foreign affairs and national security Egypt's global and regional role has deteriorated while the dangers the nation faces have grown on all sides. Egypt, as a result, is more vulnerable than ever. The country is in the grip of chronic stagnation, accompanied by inflation, increasing unemployment rates and declining levels of investment. Education, health care and other social services have deteriorated to the brink of collapse. The system is characterised by wide-spread corruption and a lack of transparency. That it lacks an effective apparatus for information and statistic gathering contributes to undermining the credibility of its statements and positions. In addition, there are no provisions for any reasonable degree of political or judicial accountability, a result, in large measure, of the lack of grassroots participation and electoral fraud. Finally, it is an excessively centralised system with an innate tendency to entrench and reproduce a culture of backwardness, fear, intimidation and opportunism. Political reform must therefore lead to the creation of a new system of government founded upon principles of institutionalisation, transparency, accountability, efficiency and integrity. It has to be a system capable of striking a balance between the centralisation necessary to maintain national unity and security and the decentralisation needed to stimulate grassroots participation and engage the most creative energies. Such objectives dictate that the necessary reform must simultaneously address the political, economic, social and cultural aspects of our lives and, therefore, needs to be a comprehensive, integrated project. Naturally, it was understood by the forum's participants, that there had to be agreed upon priorities. It is impossible to proceed with reforms across all these facets of our national life at an equal pace. That priorities must exist, though, by no means implies that areas of reform are either separable from one another or that they should be in the absence of an established chronological and hierarchical order. It was thus agreed that comprehensive reform involved three indispensable and interrelated components: a comprehensive vision designating principles and ultimate aims and purposes, policies for putting this vision into effect across the board, and programmes for achieving specific interim targets within designated timeframes through available means and mechanisms appropriate to the circumstances and demands of each phase. As the forum was neither the time nor place for participants to formulate a vision, policies or programmes, participants concentrated on establishing the criteria that should be brought to bear during the process of setting priorities. In this regard, a consensus emerged over the need for these criteria to be functional and practical, so as to facilitate, rather than hamper, the reform process, keeping it within the confines of the feasible without forsaking ambition. Divisions emerged between the participants over whether the government and the ruling party were solely responsible for the deterioration or whether responsibility fell on all sectors of society, if in varying degrees. Many argued that the opposition parties were little better than the ruling party in terms of internal democratic methods and procedures. They also held that many of Egypt's intellectuals had failed to shoulder their responsibilities and were, as a result, partly to blame for the current situation. Others feared that significant social and political forces were not only resistant to change but were actually advocating backward moves towards more oppressive conditions. At the same time, however, many at the gathering pleaded against getting bogged down in apportioning blame in the hope of bringing participants back on the business of designating those forces that had a clear interest in extricating the country from its current predicament. Here, too, a marked division opened between two camps which might conveniently be labelled "excluders" and "includers". Among the former were those who maintained that since the ruling party stood to benefit from the perpetuation of the status quo it could not be depended on to steer the reform process or even to participate in it. Reform is something that should be fought for, not granted, they argued, defending the exclusion of the ruling party from the reform movement. Another group of "excluders" felt that Islamist groups could not be involved, arguing that such groups viewed reform merely as a vehicle for assuming power, after which they would eliminate their opponents. On the other side of the divide, the "includers" -- among whom I count myself -- maintained that since we were all in the same boat facing the same perils, it was only by working together that we could save the ship of state from sinking and bring it safely to shore. The urgency of this situation, they continued, made it imperative that we set aside political differences given that what is most needed at this stage is not the formulation of a "unified political programme", or the creation of a coalition or salvation government, but a consensus over how best to arrange our polity so as to enable full participation in the political process with the ballot box as the ultimate arbiter. Once these principles are established as the ground rules, then all who accept and abide by them should be deemed qualified to participate in the reform movement, regardless of their location on the political and ideological map. Participants also came to loggerheads over method. One group believed that reform was a gradual process that should be allowed to work its way upwards, from the level of the individual and the family. Cultural changes, they argued, take root through developments in upbringing and education. On the opposite side were those who argued that our current circumstances did not permit for the luxury of a gradualist approach and that what was needed was a top-to-bottom approach that began with political reform and expanded outwards to encompass cultural and educational reforms that would trickle down to families and individuals. Within this second camp it was possible to discern two subsidiaries, the more radical demanding major constitutional reform, specifically concerning the election of the president, the more moderate arguing for the integrity of the ballot box to be respected initially at the municipal and parliamentary, after which it would then be possible to contemplate a system providing for competing presidential candidates. The sharp differences of opinion among participants at the forum by no means detracted from the unanimous consensus over the need to rescind state of emergency laws and to immediately begin the process of amending political party, electoral and syndicate laws. In this regard participants urged the creation of a committee of "wise men" to study amendments to the constitution which, in the opinion of all present, has evolved into one of the wonders of the world. More generally, the overall level of consensus among those present at the forum underscored public concern of over the direction reform should take. Unfortunately, it is not the type of reform the ruling party wants, nor is it the type of reform civil society can impose. And therein lies a problem, one that will grow increasingly acute the more we delve into the issue of political reform. It is a problem we must hope that our rulers both recognise and grasp: if not, untold dangers lie ahead. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
