The pace of reform is less important than the substance, writes Ibrahim Nafie Is the reform process moving too slowly? That this question, in one form or other, has been put to me so frequently recently by so many different people is indicative of a relatively new phenomenon in Egypt: a desire for change so widespread that it has evolved into something of a national mood. Unfortunately, moods are not easily addressed through rational argument. As healthy as this desire is -- it reflects a people's devotion to the welfare of their country -- ardour must be kept in strict check by reason if we are to devise the formulas most conducive to our ends. Enormous changes have swept the world over the past two years, and the Middle East has been in the eye of the storm. Foreign armies have intervened and regimes have toppled. Established policies have been abandoned and alliances have shifted while new values surfaced. In short, an entire region is being thoroughly overhauled. Such a climate has had a powerful impact on Egypt, a country that historically has most influenced, and is influenced, by what goes on around it, and on the Egyptian people, the most politicised people in the region, a result of their national legacy and the freedom of expression they enjoy. It was only natural, therefore, in view of the emphasis we have always placed on the intrinsic link between home and abroad and the ingrained belief that in order to better confront the challenges we face abroad we must first begin at home, that people would begin to question not only our foreign policy but also domestic policies. There is, thus, no debate in Egypt over the need for change. There is, however, controversy, sometimes sharp, over the "specifics" of change. That controversy is important, but it should not make us lose sight of the essentials. Egypt is already undergoing momentous changes, and these are being implemented with precision in light of carefully devised cost-benefit calculations at any given stage. Nevertheless, even on some of the more straightforward issues, there remains considerable discrepancy in opinion between various sectors of Egyptian society. Within the NDP alone, during its last congress, there were heated discussions over agricultural land and local administration. Imagine, then, the complexities and sensitivities that would arise when broaching such a major issue as constitutional reform. Contrary to the general impression there are no taboos, as President Mubarak himself demonstrated with characteristic succinctness only recently in his response to the subject of "bequeathing power". The issue, therefore, is not discussion, but rather the tenor and focus of the discussion. Egypt cannot afford to leap blindly into space, all the more so now that the world has become a more dangerous place than many imagine. What happened to Iraq and some other countries in the region should have instilled the lesson that change must be conducted in a manner that averts adverse repercussions, for once such repercussions are set in motion it becomes impossible to turn back and to offset the costs. One also senses in the public an inordinate desire for haste, as though change in Egypt must happen as rapidly as it is taking place elsewhere in the region. Perhaps the question of pace requires a separate discussion, but for the moment it should be noted that, even in those areas that might theoretically be identified as conducive to rapid change, fast is not synonymous with shock tactics. The age of shock tactics is over, the cumulative effects of the disruption they caused provides an ample demonstration of the bankruptcy of this strategy. Nor is fast an antonym of incremental. Regardless of the velocity we choose, we cannot leapfrog over important steps in the process of transformation without generating severe and perhaps irreversible complications. However impatient some might be, the gradual approach in which each phase is carefully planned and calibrated to lead to the next is clearly the safest. Although all of the foregoing may be open to debate, there has surfaced a trend of opinion that I find not only reckless but inimical to deeply rooted Egyptian values and principles. Certain voices, representing only themselves, have mooted the possibility of courting outside pressure to effect change. Apparently, these individuals have failed to fathom the effect such "external mechanisms" have had on other countries and are therefore blind to the scale of disaster that would accrue from their application to the domestic affairs of other peoples. The interplay between nations naturally generates some of the incentives for change. However, the impetus for change must come from within and the process of change must be driven by the combined forces of the people and their political representatives. Certainly, this is the lesson that Iraq has driven so palpably home to the US administration, which is why Washington has sharply altered tack towards Iran, Libya, Sudan and perhaps Syria. It has realised the folly of creating another swamp for itself by meddling so intrusively in the domestic affairs of others. Apart from this aberrant trend of opinion, the pulse of the Egyptian street is normal and Egypt's political leadership is clearly attuned to its aspirations. There are many productive ideas that need to be explored further, and there are many facts that need to be laid before the public so that we can take the right decisions. However, I have no doubt that Egypt has embarked on a healthy, even-keeled process of change that will enable it to proceed with even broader strides on the course it has chosen for itself.
