Contrary to black and white depictions, Hala Mustafa* argues that the state is the cornerstone of reform The following conveys the essence of views expressed by the writer during a recent encounter with US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Few topics have drawn as much interest and discussion, or caused as much controversy, as that of reform, which is still the foremost topic in public debate. Debate in itself is a sign of health. The first step towards democratic evolution starts with dialogue, discussion and acceptance of plurality, diversity and even conflict of opinion. Conflict enriches political experience and enhances its maturity. Ultimately, that experience would reach a certain level, that of "general consensus", that of a common denominator accepted by all and sundry, a dominator that sets, in a voluntary and free manner, the rules of the political game. Consensus, taken in this sense, does not necessarily mean unanimity. It does not mean that everyone should be speaking in one voice, nor does it mean that we should revive outdated totalitarian experiences, regardless of what name these experiences assume and whether they come from the West or the East. Historical and practical experience proves that totalitarianism has failed and is a matter of the past. General consensus does not confiscate the individual's right to differ on certain policies or on the way to implement and correct them. The door for innovation will remain open, giving public and political life a much-needed vitality. Debate on reform and difference over its content is a logical matter and a legitimate quest for all parties and various political and intellectual currents as well as for individuals. Reform is a goal to be pursued without fear of intimidation, without accusations of treason or finger pointing. There is no longer room for the so-called dictatorship of the majority. The best way to gauge the advancement or backwardness of a certain society or regime is looking at how it handles individual rights. Difference or conflict on reform is not the issue. What deserves a closer look is "the equation of the internal and external". This equation is forever looming over the reform question. So that the debate does not go in circles, it is important to stress an obvious fact: reform, by definition, can only emanate from inside societies, because it is the responsibility of the people of these societies. They, at the end of the day, and irrespective of their inclinations and views, are partners in the creation of their homeland. Besides, reform, unlike all "revolutionary" approaches, does not sit well with the idea of a ready- made "agenda", an agenda that does not take specificities into account or endorse calculated gradualism as a manner of change. But there is a main difference between this logical view and the policy of "no-action" or "no-choice"; the policy of fear and doubt of everything that is new. The latter policy would only lead to insulation, stagnation and reproduction of the old ways. It would involve a vision based on what is known in the political lexicon as "the easy solution", which is the mere preservation of the "status quo" and the attempt to protect this status quo from deterioration. It is obvious that such a vision is neither a choice nor a policy. All it does is postpone the solution of problems and the confrontation of challenges. This is not a call to simplify issues that are complicated by nature. Even if we agree that certain pressures exist, the language of politics does not involve a unified, single, one-track method of dealing with a certain crisis or challenge. On the contrary, politics requires the existence of more than one method and way, without upsetting national principles. Also, the relation with "the outside" is one of great complexity. It is a relation that, at the end of the day, is based on mutual, unhidden and clear interests. In other words, despite all the hidden or unhidden symptoms of tension which come and go, these interests assume in the end a measure of rationality and pragmatism; a measure that both sides of the relationship are careful to maintain. Mutual interests tend to balance at a certain point; one at which a common ground is found, without affectation or pretense. As for the occasional exaggeration concerning this external element, this is something that may suit a country small in size and stature, not one that prides itself in its power and status -- one that has created events and policies and led major changes in its long and recent history, one that is influential and innovative, not stagnant or afraid or merely the "recipient" of events. The rationalism and pragmatism of the state, its so-called "raison d'être", was never in question. This particular point leads me to bring up an issue that has surfaced persistently in the debate over reform and the related equation of internal-versus-external impetus. I am referring here to the relation between the state and civil society, a relation that changes in its nature and content according to various considerations involving political experience, the historical record and practical measures, along with various economic, social, legislative, legal and cultural factors. These considerations differ from one society to another, but in the end they define the shape of the relation between the state and civil society; a relation that can either be healthy and wholesome or confrontational. Undoubtedly, it is the history and course of the experience that makes the difference. Because civil society -- in concept and experience -- is a new phenomenon in most Arab countries, a certain degree of confusion is understandable, even expected, over terminology, application and practical options. In more well-established polities, particularly the European ones, civil society has evolved for nearly three centuries as a "partner" of the state in various aspects of development, political and social as well as cultural and political. "Partnership" here is a partnership in the social role of the state, and it takes place according to the principle of partnership in its wider sense. Partnership takes place through the involvement of citizens active in organised and volunteer work, in the efforts of development and progress. In brief, civil society, as it exists in the more advanced experience, was never a force growing at the expense of the state or offsetting the latter's weakness and corrosion, as it is depicted in some ongoing discussion. The scene is not one of competition, replacement, or defiance to the state with its military, political and administrative institutions -- at least it should not be. Civil society in the end does not represent an authority confronting that of the state. It does not have the right to take decisions on behalf of the state. In the West, where civil society has an assertive presence, the state remains strong. In this context, there are basic observations being made in the course of the debate on reform and the role of civil society both in the internal and foreign milieus. Firstly, in the light of the central and pivotal role of the state, one cannot speak about launching and inaugurating the process of change, reform and modernisation except through the state. The Egyptian state, since its creation in the 19th century, has been involved in such efforts in a unique and continual manner. The state has sponsored the project of modernisation since its creation and until the 1950s, when that project turned into a pan-Arab endeavour. The state, once again, led a major process of change in the 1970s, with regard to regional peace as well as political pluralism and free economy at home. Therefore, any serious discussion of debate at present will not be meaningful without acknowledging the vital and much-needed role of the state. Secondly, it is an over-simplification to view both the state and civil society from the perspective of "dualism", from an angle of confrontation, or through what is known as the equation of "black and white" and "good and evil". Such a view does not tally with facts. Not everything put forward by civil society is necessarily good, progressive and reformative. There are positive as well as negative aspects. Besides, we are not dealing here with an idealised and independent sector that relies alone on the initiatives of its members and their volunteer work to serve societal or public issues. Therefore, we cannot always assume that civil society is the best conveyor of constructive change. Thirdly, a certain confusion has recently surfaced between the liberal and reformative approach, on the one hand, and civil society on the other, as if the two were synonymous. This view may be inaccurate. Not all the activists in civil society are liberals or have a comprehensive vision of reform or champion intellectual and political causes. Civil society as it exists today is a mixed bag of many currents (rightist, leftist, pan-Arab, Islamic, etc) as well as economic pressure groups and businessmen, the latter being particularly vocal and forceful. Therefore, it is not unlikely, under the current conditions, that the so-called empowerment of civil society would only empower a specific group or, to be more exact, specific pressure groups. The latter may have their vision and vital contribution in certain areas, particularly the business sector, but the matter of reform will remain a more complex and wider issue. For the above and other considerations, the role of the state will remain crucial in adopting a comprehensive national project for reform and modernisation. So, why the hesitation! * The writer is the editor-in-chief of the quarterly journal Al- Dimocratia (Democracy) issued by Al-Ahram.
