, NDP secretary for media affairs, tells Assem El-Kersh and Shaden Shehab that there will be no surprises at the NDP conference, and no talk of succession What is the National Democratic Party (NDP) looking to achieve at this year's annual conference? Will there be any surprises or changes? This is an annual conference. It is similar to the annual gatherings of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom. No party can afford to initiate new policies at such an event or make changes in its leadership every year. The main objective of the annual conference is to allow party leaders at all levels to get together, to review what the party has done in the past year, to exchange experiences and review policies. The NDP has taken a number of strategic choices and has started implementing them in the economic and political spheres. The annual conference is part of the mechanism that allows the party to review, monitor and evaluate what has been achieved and what has not been achieved and why. It is a forum at which we might change or re-emphasise a priority but not set new ones. It is taking place at a crucial time. It is three years since the 2005 presidential [elections and] platform which made concrete promises. This is a midway conference and the government must make its case for what has been achieved so far. It is a conference about accountability. It is also being held in the middle of a global economic crisis, with no end in sight. No one knows where we are heading, whether it is recession or depression. Only one thing is sure: adverse consequences will be felt across the globe, Egypt included. Holding a conference in the middle of all this forces a reconsideration of policies. You need to juggle with three dimensions, deepening the reform policies that achieved seven per cent growth so as to assimilate new entries into the labour market, and that must be done over three successive years. You do not want to sacrifice growth since that means more unemployment. Yet given the crisis some policy changes will have to be made. The challenge is to adapt to the new international climate while pursuing our original goals. And whatever changes are made cannot weigh on the people. The president has made it clear that the poor must not shoulder the burden of economic reform. Social justice is increasingly a buzz concept within the NDP. Yet there have always been poor people and poor areas. Why has it taken so long to give prominence to the issue? This question is based on unfounded assumptions. There has always been a social dimension to our thinking. Look at President Mubarak's speeches, or those of other officials, from the 1980s onwards, and you will find repeated references to social commitment. If you analyse expenditure you will see what percentage goes to subsidies, insurance and other forms of social protection. This is not new. What is new is our ability to cope with the issues. There was awareness but there were no resources to deal with the problems. For the first time we have sufficient resources. For example, the railway system has been decaying for the last 50 years. It was common knowledge but we were unable to deal with the problem as a whole and instead merely patched things. Because of privatisation we have been able to allocate LE5 billion to upgrade the railways. It is a matter of capability, but also of information. Thanks to the UNDP and other organisations we have been able to map the geography of poverty. We have identified the poorest 1,000 villages where action is now being taken. With resources and accurate information problems can be addressed. But the poor have yet to feel the benefits of increased growth rates in their day to day lives... That is not true. Sweeping statements like that do not help. Inflation rates are being brought under control and the people realise this. Last year the government began working in two villages in Upper Egypt which Gamal Mubarak recently visited. The villages are part of a pilot study, and the aim is to measure obstacles to development. The next stage will involve 150 villages. To change people's quality of life it is not enough to increase income. You have to deal with an entire package, establish schools, improve housing, electricity, water and enhance awareness. That is what the party means by social targeting and stability. Coverage of NDP activities often seems skewed. There are those that criticise and those that praise. Is there a failure in marketing the party's achievements? One-sided stories, by definition, are not objective. There are successes and there are drawbacks, the picture is never entirely black and white. Managing social change is very difficult. It is easily said but hard to implement. We are tolerant of criticism. As Deng Xiao Peng, the architect of China's economic reforms said, "it's only natural that when you open windows some flies will come". Political and economic freedoms often go hand in hand, initially at least, with corruption and mistakes. The mistakes do not surprise me. What is important is that there are corrective mechanisms. We have to work more within the party before convincing people outside and that requires political education within the party. The opposition has more manoeuvrability than those in power, especially in a poor and emotional country. They can complain about any issue, from Suzanne Tamim to fires. There is always something to complain about. So it is [best to explain the actions of the NDP] towards such issues and practise self criticism. We have nothing to hide, nothing we are unable to defend. We accept criticism but we refuse character assassination. The things that are said about Gamal Mubarak, for instance, we don't feel we have to rebut such accusations let alone debate them. Do you think that those newspapers that simply praise the NDP do more harm than good? It depends. Once you accept democracy and freedom of press you have to accept that it has consequences. You have to be tolerant and accept diversity. What we are not ready to accept is [journalists] who [publish] false information and don't apologise or correct it. Then the courts are the correct recourse. And this is not a violation of press freedom. So you are against lifting custodial sentences for publication offences, even though there is a presidential promise to do so? That is untrue. You are mixing up facts. There is no such thing as the wholesale imprisonment of journalists. You can be convicted of libel, and it doesn't matter whether you are a journalist or a university professor. Rumours of succession continue. Now Gamal Mubarak attends cabinet meetings, and this has led to further speculation about his political ambitions... Gamal Mubarak does not attend cabinet meetings. He meets with the prime minister or a number of ministers when commissioned to do so by the party and its politburo. It is an aspect of ongoing coordination between the party and the government. Either the prime minister attends NDP meetings or the secretary-general of the party, or Gamal Mubarak, in his capacity as chairman of the Policies Committee, attends cabinet meetings when there is a particularly contentious issue to discuss. Gamal Mubarak does not go alone. The heads of NDP committees in the concerned fields also attend. There seems to be an open season for attacking Gamal Mubarak and the party, and it falls immediately ahead of the NDP's conference. It is an attempt to divert attention and stir up public opinion. It has happened for at least five years. Every year there are the same claims, that this is a conference to plan the succession, and every year it is not. Look at Egypt's modern history. Since Mohamed Ali there have been laws in place to guard the process of succession and the laws have been obeyed. Egypt is a land of institutions. All actors in the political process abide by the rules of succession. They did so under the monarchy, during the revolution era... there has never been a challenge or violation of the law. The constitution clearly sets the way a new president is chosen. Is the NDP not worried that chaos may ensue, or that there is a threat from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), in any transition period? The constitution is clear. In the absence of the president the speaker of parliament takes over for 60 days. In his absence the head of the constitutional court takes over for 60 days [until elections]. What guarantees are there that a smooth transition will take place? The army is the custodian of stability in this country. Everyone knows that. Who will compete with the party in the coming elections? It depends. Currently the NDP is the strongest, largest and most democratic party. For true democrats the challenge is how to consolidate other political parties and how to activate political pluralism. In all our statements we stress that it is not in the interests of the NDP to be the only party, nor is it in the interests of the stability of the country. But the only alternative to the NDP are weak parties. I don't want to indulge in who is to blame for that, the parties themselves or the ruling party. The best way to consolidate other political parties is to ensure they win larger representation in parliament. A party with no representation in parliament ends up being a newspaper. We must integrate as many political parties in the process as possible, and they must be represented in parliament. How do you view the MB in this context? The MB is an ideological trend and a religious, social, civic group. But it is a group that continues to confuse advocacy with political work. As a social trend I accept them. They have never applied for a licence to establish a political party. Why not? They know the application will be rejected because they stand against the constitution and the rights of citizenship. Religion and politics cannot be mixed. Don't you think that dialogue between the NDP and other political forces over Egypt's future direction is essential? In Egypt we tend to invent many unnecessary things. Debates and dialogues happen in institutions -- in parliament and the Shura Council, at conferences attended by experts affiliated to trends across the political spectrum. But the ruling party is open to any suggestions for the good of the country. Does the old guard of the NDP exist? No. The party is committed to reform. People may articulate that commitment differently but there is room for a diversity of views. Do you think whoever wins the US elections will make a difference to Egypt, especially given that the US has continued to demand that Egypt implement greater political reforms? Any actions taken by the US administration reflect US interests. They don't press for political reform and democratisation because they are saints. They adopt a double-standard towards human rights, using them as a pressure card that sometimes they play and sometimes not, according to their interests. Do you think the mix of business with politics has become a liability given recent cases of high-level corruption? It would be a disgrace if the NDP tried to protect someone who has committed a crime. The NDP will have no relationships with anyone who has been convicted of a crime. Hisham Talaat Mustafa's indictment is sufficient proof that the ruling party will not tolerate cronyism. He was a member of the NDP's Policies Committee but not of any of the party's secretariats. The lack of any legal framework regulating the relationship between wealth and power opens the door wide to corruption, conflicts of interest and cronyism. But you can't prevent businessmen from becoming MPs. What you can do is set guidelines regulating any possible conflict of interests, and this we need to do. How do you see the controversy surrounding Ahmed Ezz? He is young, less than 50, and very rich. That makes him a controversial figure. How is the NDP financed? From membership fees and donations. The government also gives LE100,000 annually, as it does to all parties. Corporate support is illegal. Donations can only be accepted from individuals. The NDP membership has reached three million since 2002. Why? Because people do not yet understand how the party has been restructured since 2002. There is a new emphasis on targeting members between the ages of 18 and 40. I am satisfied with the number of members... The success of a party is measured by affinity not numbers. What is the relationship between the government and party? NDP proposals, after all, are often ignored by the cabinet. It's a very delicate issue. The government implements policies but it is sanctioned, as in the UK and US, by the ruling party. When ministers are not appointed from the NDP we are criticised, and people ask where the party's cadres are. And when they are appointed from the party we are also criticised. The basis of the legitimacy of the government is that the NDP maintains its position as the ruling party. People blame the NDP when they should really blame the government but we have to live with that. The NDP must reflect the aspirations of the people. No ruling party can afford to downplay the demands of the public. The party needs to be two or three steps ahead of the government. It must dream with the people while the government is constrained by the budget.
