Veteran political analyst Mohamed Hassanein Heikal offers his views on how Egypt can negotiate the transition to democracy, reports Dina Ezzat A status assessment of political developments since the start of the 25 January Revolution by all concerned Egyptian political forces is overdue, said Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, Egypt's most celebrated political commentator. The assessment, Heikal argued, should be followed by a status report by the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) detailing where the nation stands in terms of internal political developments, the economy and regional and international relations. Then, Heikal continued in an interview with the senior editorial board of Al-Ahram daily, there must be an informed national dialogue involving all concerned parties -- the SCAF, youth movements that triggered the first wave of the 25 January Revolution, political parties old and new, and leading political and national figures. The purpose of the dialogue, Heikal argued in the second episode of the interview printed on Tuesday -- the first part appeared last Friday -- would be to agree on a clear set of steps on the road ahead. To facilitate this, he said, the dialogue should avoid unnecessary clashes. It should also be conducted away from any fetishistic pursuit of a timetable set in stone for though time is of the essence it is far from being the only factor. For any dialogue to be meaningful basic facts must first be made available to participants, though not necessarily placed in the public domain. "People do not have access to facts, rendering their talk uninformed and impulsive. This is clearly no way to handle the move from the present to the future. Transition is conducted properly when plans for that transition are based on facts," said Heikal. Egypt's leading political commentator has proposed that the SCAF should share with its partners relevant information on the economic and security problems with which he says the ruling authorities are trying very hard to grapple. The SCAF, says Heikal, enjoys considerable public confidence as the guardian of the 25 January Revolution, and should not be overly sensitive towards criticism, especially from the Youth Revolution Coalition. Such criticism, he argues, should not be viewed automatically as a sign of ingratitude but as signalling concern among youth movements that they are being marginalised in the decision-making process. This sense of marginalisation on the part of the youth, and defensiveness on the part of the SCAF, are part of a wider problem that includes public frustration at the failure to secure the fruits of a revolution they thought complete. Without restoring harmony among these players it will be very difficult for the nation to move towards a more stable future which is why, according to Heikal, there is an urgent need to end any misunderstanding between the SCAF and the youth coalitions. It must be acknowledged that while the Armed Forces protected the public during the worst days of the revolution, it is the public that gave the SCAF legitimacy after President Hosni Mubarak stepped down. After all, says Heikal, the SCAF, the youth movements, political parties and the wider public have far more in common than current misunderstandings might suggest: Mubarak's ouster was, in the end, possible because of a shared sense of frustration among all these parties at the hijacking of national affairs to serve an illicit succession scenario that would see power inherited by Mubarak's younger son Gamal. Each party has reason to be uneasy about the others but such unease cannot be allowed to override the existing consensus that the nation has to move beyond three decades of Mubarak's rule and launch a truly democratic state. The current emphasis on legislative elections and early presidential campaigning is not necessarily wise for the safest road to a stable and democratic Egypt, says Heikal, should not automatically be assumed to involve rushing to the ballot box. The road must first be paved. Securing that road is not the exclusive prerogative of the SCAF. It is a responsibility that the SCAF should share with a national board of trustees, a body which Heikal began to champion two years before the uprising that forced Mubarak from power. "It should not be such a difficult job to agree on 100 or 200 figures that command the confidence of the people. There are historic precedents," says Heikal. Heikal stresses that any board of trustees must reflect the broad composition of political trends, expressing concern over the sudden and exaggerated show of force on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most visible political power on the current scene, and the parallel marginalisation of Copts, "the 10 million or more who are being overlooked as some talk about drafting a constitution". For Heikal, the board of trustees is not just about the SCAF sharing power and responsibilities with civilians but about establishing a collective leadership "at a time of crisis". The participatory exercise of power, he argues, will help ease the pressure on the SCAF and embolden the nation to act in a more decisive way, circumventing the hesitation that has been such a post-revolution feature. For this participation to be successful, however, Heikal insists all parties need to free themselves of illusions: the youth need to know that the situation is still to be fixed and that they do not have the upper hand; and SCAF needs to be more accommodating. The rest of Heikal's views on the road to the future will be shared with the readers of Al-Ahram in the third instalment of the interview scheduled to appear tomorrow.
