Hassanein Heikal, the Arab world's most renowned journalist, says what's ahead counts for more than what happened, Dina Ezzat reports The nation's uncontested top political commentator Mohamed Hassanein Heikal offered a much awaited reading and analysis of the state of affairs in the country on the 100-day anniversary of the 25 January Revolution. Speaking to the Chairman of the Board of Al-Ahram Labib El-Sebaai, Heikal offered a detailed vision of his reading of the political developments in Egypt and offered a specific set of measures on how to move forward. "I don't think that you should be putting the future on hold while you are getting too engrossed in getting a balance sheet of how the past was conducted," said the prominent political commentator whose insides in the decision-making circles remain unequalled. The comment was one of many that were run in the three-episode interview suggesting the key argument that the focus of the nation now should be on shaping the future, notwithstanding a scrupulous account on the mistakes of the past. "I suggest that a legal-judiciary-political body be set up to look into how things were run and to take into account all what happened," Heikal told El-Sebaai. He added that it was rather senseless to expect the prosecutor-general's office to attend to the accusations being levelled against the toppled regime and its figures, especially that some of these accusations are of a strict political nature. Moreover, Heikal argued that attending to the mistakes -- maybe even crimes -- of the past should not come at the expense of the pressing demands of the future. "You need to think of the consequences on the economy," he said, "when you launch a campaign against a bunch of businessmen who acquired land at cheap prices in accordance with the legal standards of the time and who could consequently fight back in a court of law." Addressing the cases of corruption, and they are many and interwoven as Heikal clearly argued, needs to be done in the recognition that for long years corruption was all but the legal norm and as such this colossal problem needs to be addressed via an untraditional approach. For Heikal, the worst of the crimes of the years of the Hosni Mubarak era, which started in 1981 following the assassination of Anwar El-Sadat, and ended on 11 February 2011 when Mubarak had to step down in the face of nationwide demonstrations, were those of a political nature. They include the attempt to pass on the presidency from Mubarak to his son Gamal and the elimination of the spirit of the republic in favour of this succession scenario. Other blunders included the exaggerated political, economic and security alliance with Israel -- at times at the expense of Egypt's relations with Arab countries; the administration of state resources as if they were family property; and the gross violations of political and human rights and indeed of national security matters, including relations with the Nile Basin countries and even worse relations between Copts and Muslims. "These are not the charges that Mubarak is accused of today before the legal bodies," said Heikal. He therefore argued that what is required rather than strict legal prosecution -- though not necessarily in replacement of this process -- is political prosecution that should be conducted by parliament, for example, "simply because it is not within the capacity of the prosecutor-general to charge Mubarak with the above accusations." For a smoother ride towards a peaceful future, Heikal argued, Mubarak needs to be condemned politically and then be asked far from Sharm El-Sheikh where he has been since 12 February "to some place where he could live and get medical treatment" after having met some key conditions, top amongst which is the return of embezzled funds. And there, too, Heikal warned against falling in the trap of giving in to exaggerated accounts on the wealth of the Mubaraks. He argued that the Mubaraks seem to have from $9 billion to $11 billion, not $820 billion as some have suggested. Moreover, Heikal reminded readers that the purpose of the revolution was to end the regime and the policies of Mubarak, not to take him to court over the cost of gas sold to Israel, as crucial as this matter is from a legal point of view. "The errors of Mubarak are not of his doing alone... and it might be too late for legal punishment," Heikal said. He added that the time was now for clear political condemnation and for a move forward towards the future whereby there should be "a state capable of addressing the demands of its citizens". It is on the transitional phase that Heikal offered a specific set of proposals. First, he suggested that the chair of the Higher Council of the Armed Forces (HCAF), Hussein Tantawi "be named president of the state". Then, Heikal suggested that the HCAF be turned into something akin to a national security council that works in line with the government to administer state affairs "for a maximum of two years" pending preparations for parliamentary and legislative elections in "an atmosphere of political freedoms and interaction" and on the basis of "a national agenda" that he said should be formulated in partnership between the three sides who are responsible for the revolution: the youth, the people and the army "that remains the strongest corner of Egyptian nationalism". Heikal also suggested the need for the election of a committee that should be entrusted with the drafting of a new constitution for the state. This is the way, Heikal suggested, that the true objective of the 25 January Revolution, for which he found reasons for worry -- should be maintained. Among the reasons for concern is the lack of a unified leadership for the revolution and the fact that this revolution, "as great as it is", remains unable to promptly overcome the long history of state mismanagement or to induce a new effective political regime. And the work towards this objective, insisted Heikal, should start now during the transition period "which should not be dealt with as a waiting period". The 25 January Revolution succeeded in achieving the end of the ruling regime but has not yet successfully established a new efficient and capable regime. It is to this end that Heikal argued his case over the administration of the transition period. The interviews with Heikal -- his first with Al-Ahram, the establishment he was once identified with -- prompted much debate both in public and intellectual quarters. "We need to move on and we cannot afford to keep worrying about what Mubarak is doing," said Reem, a hair dresser who works in a beauty salon in one of the city's five-star hotels. "I am not an admirer of Heikal but for once I agree with him," said Amani, a civil engineer. "Personally I think that Mubarak's biggest crime is about the policies that caused the backwardness of Egypt but I know that you cannot send him to jail on those bases." Like Reem, Amani is complaining about an economic recession. "It is pretty serious and it will get worse; and if people think the warnings the army is issuing about the economic situation are exaggerated then they're wrong because we are in a very bad economic situation." Amani, however, was not in favour of Heikal's particular proposal about naming Tantawi president. "Tantawi is a decent man and he has done good things since the revolution but we really should not be falling again in the trap of having a military ruler. This is not what we want. Let us have elections and get a civil president so that the democratic process starts," she said. For liberal political commentator Wahid Abdel-Meguid, the Heikal proposal to name Tantawi president is not designed "from what I know" to help Tantawi become president "because I don't think this is what Tantawi wants". Instead, Abdel-Meguid saw the essence of the proposal as projecting a sense of stability "to allow for a longer transitional period" than perceived. Abdel-Meguid does not hide disagreement on this front. He argues that a longer transitional period would be "rather undemocratic" in view of the overwhelming vote of support in a referendum on constitutional amendments that proposed parliamentary elections be held in September and presidential elections later the same year. "If the majority is not for a long transitional period then this is how things should be done," Abdel-Meguid said. Leading Muslim Brotherhood figure Essam El-Erian agreed. El-Erian, too, argued that what Heikal is proposing is not consistent with the outcome of the referendum for parliamentary and presidential elections. For El-Erian, this immediately excludes all talk about a lengthier transitional period or about naming Tantawi president. It also excludes, according to El-Erian, the idea of electing a committee to draft the constitution, given that the constitutional amendments that were voted on in March propose that the constitution should be drafted by 100 people from within the newly elected parliament. This is the interpretation given by El-Erian and many others. "The election of the committee to draft the constitution is the most democratic way but given that the amendments voted positively suggest otherwise we cannot reverse the wheel," said Abdel-Meguid. He added that a compromise is possible -- to have the 100-member committee not exclusively from within parliament but also from other intellectual and legal quarters. It is over the Heikal vision on how to deal with Mubarak that Abdel-Meguid tended to generally agree with Heikal. "I agree that what Mubarak is not standing trial for is more important and much graver than what he is accused of," said Abdel-Meguid. He agreed with the importance of a political trial through parliament but, like El-Erian argued, the need for the current legal process of litigation against Mubarak must be fully completed. On Facebook and Twitter, too, the Heikal proposals are being commented on, not least after former first lady Suzanne Mubarak, who was charged with financial corruption, was released Tuesday following an authorisation to transfer funds and properties to the state. The subsequent decision to also bail out Zakaria Azmi, Mubarak's chief chamberlain, who was in custody pending investigations over financial irregularities, prompted question marks over a possible plan to contain the open-ended litigation process in favour of a more forward-looking approach.
