Close up: Heikal's letters By Salama A Salama No one expected such heated debate to emerge over the letters Mohamed Hassanein Heikal sent to President Hosni Mubarak in the early 1980s, a year or so after Mubarak took office. A calm and reasoned public discussion of the circumstances surrounding the letters is in order -- no doubt about that. Shortly after writing the letters, Heikal agreed to publish them in the magazine Al-Musawwar, but the president's objection stopped publication. Many wonder why this happened. And why, after all these years, Heikal had the letters published in Al-Masry Al-Yom. In the early paragraphs of his first letter, Heikal explains his reasons for writing. He reviews the situation in the country at the time of Sadat's assassination and notes that one of Mubarak's first actions was to release the political figures Sadat had detained in a bout of anger -- an act that perhaps cost him his life. Egypt was hovering on the brink, raked by tensions at home and troubled by Israel's attempts to postpone its withdrawal from Sinai. Heikal discusses all of that, but stops short of offering us reason for his recent decision to publish the letters. Those who criticise Heikal for publishing the letters claim that they are outdated and irrelevant to the country's present. I have to disagree. What many seem to forget is that there are many similarities between the transitional phase Egypt experienced in the early 1980s and today. And yet, the transition when Sadat was assassinated took place in an orderly manner. The vice-president took over from the slain leader, and the nation gave him a new mandate, while fully expecting him to turn a new page in the country's history. Mubarak, everyone hoped, would start dialogue with all opposition parties, combat corruption, and generally revitalise government. The promising beginnings didn't last for long. Gradually, pitfalls started to appear, and Heikal was quick to note them in detail. He had his reservations about the performance of the president and the ruling party. He felt that corruption was not being adequately tackled. He questioned some aspects of foreign relations, especially those related to national security and ties with Israel and America. And he criticised the indecision and sluggishness that hampered public policy. Much of this remains true today. I am not saying that everything Heikal said was true, or that others have no right to question his judgement. But this is perhaps a good opportunity for all of us to ponder what this country has been through since the letters were first written. Where have we been then, and where are we now? Have we made good use of all the effort and money we've spent? Were our aspirations too high to be met? A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Mubarak came to power. As a nation we have changed much, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. The fact that Heikal's views are being so widely discussed today perhaps signals that some things have improved since Sadat's time. In his letter, Heikal admits that the worst thing about the times of Abdel-Nasser and Sadat was that power was used excessively and disproportionately, with political freedom curtailed as a result. Have things changed since then? One can only hope that the publication of these letters will give a boost to the freedom to which this nation is entitled. One can only hope that the coming transition of power, when it happens, will proceed without pitfall or hindrance. Otherwise, what's to become of us?
