Pundits aver that the Egyptian press resonates with the diatribes of Hyde Park Corner, note Gamal Nkrumah and Mohamed El-Sayed Rose El-Youssef , the sensationalist weekly magazine, focussed on two of its favourite topics: Coptic Christian concerns and corruption. "Would the next pope be a married man?" was a provocative headline that caused much ink to flow. Several commentators pontificated about the pros and cons of the celibacy of the popes. Traditionalists predictably argued against permitting Coptic popes to marry. More liberal Copts found the notion of papal celibacy outmoded, and advocated that popes should be given the option of marrying. "Monks are better qualified to administer church matters, because they have left behind mundane matters for Christ's sake," argued priest Morcos Aziz. Priests are permitted, indeed encouraged, to get married in the Coptic Church. Others concurred, Secularist Kamal Zakher, on the other hand, maintained that selecting the pope from a small group of celibate monks is a crippling anachronism. Zakher advocated the selection of the Coptic pope from contemporary clergy who are well-versed in mundane matters. His controversial views have sounded the alarm bells in certain Coptic quarters. Rose El-Youssef also tackled the prickly question of corruption in the country at large. The issue of corruption is one that has aroused the public's sensibilities and anger. The issue is especially pertinent at this time of the year when the country celebrates the 55th anniversary of the July Revolution. Writing in the daily Al-Ahram, Salama Ahmed Salama launched a scathing criticism of the government's provision of facilities to real estate companies that build luxurious housing units. Salama was furious that the rich are the recipients of subsidies and grants while the poor are rendered homeless. "Economists argue that investments are used in building luxurious resorts and villas for a category of people whose percentage does not exceed 0.5 per cent [of the population]." However, what especially galled Salama is that the wealthy elite use these luxury mansions as country houses when the labouring classes cannot afford decent housing. "The rich use these resorts for only a few days a year," Salama said. He said that there is a mistaken belief that luxury spending helps in boosting the economy. On the contrary, Salama warns, such conspicuous spending profits only a tiny minority. "As a matter of fact, it is like the expansion in launching mobile operators, which gives only a slight boost to the economy and creates only a handful of jobs but even fewer future employment opportunities." Salama went on a tirade against what he sees as the excesses of the government, coming down especially hard on the Ministry of Housing which received a punishing diatribe. "The minister of housing appeared in the media defending the policy of selling plots of lands in auctions to Gulf investment companies, arguing that it had poured tens of billions [of pounds] into the state's treasury. But he did not mention how many flats these investments provided middle- and low-income people." Salama's criticism was especially poignant because it coincided with the commemoration of the 23 July Revolution which championed the cause of the poor. Other pundits used the occasion to reprimand the authorities for letting down the poor. In an unprecedented opprobrium of the government, the opposition weekly Al-Dostour spread pages on a daring comparison between Mubarak's regime and that of the former president Gamal Abdel-Nasser on the occasion of the 55th anniversary of the revolution. "Mubarak's rebellion against Gamal Abdel-Nasser's revolution", ran the headline described by pro-government observers as anti- Mubarak. The paper drew a comparison between the late and current president. "[Nasser] sided with the poor and fought feudalism, and set up the public sector, while [Mubarak] sided with businessmen, sold the public sector and impoverished the low- incomed." The comparison between the two was never made so blatantly. Traditionally, Nasser was compared favourably with former president Anwar El-Sadat, but never with Mubarak. "Nasser led a revolution against the rich, while Mubarak led a revolution against the poor," it added. There is an ongoing debate as to whether this kind of criticism and comparisons amount to licentious tongue-lashing or true democracy at work. Ibrahim Eissa, editor-in-chief of the newspaper, mocked the speech Mubarak gave on the occasion of the revolution's anniversary. "Mubarak said in his speech that priority now is for completing our democracy, continuing economic and social reforms, and giving a push to development efforts. There is no sentence more telling of Mubarak's thoughts and way of governance than this one. It confirms that there is no hope that Mubarak will do anything [constructive]... After 26 years in power, he still speaks about completing [democracy and economic and social reforms]." Eissa outdid himself this time but commentators warned that responsible writers should learn when to draw the line. There is a big difference between irresponsible slurs and constructive criticism. There is also plenty of room for constructive criticism in a dynamic democracy. Mohamed Salmawi wrote in the daily independent Al-Masry Al-Yom about the freedom of expression in Egypt and how it does not have much influence on politics. "The mission of the Egyptian press nowadays is not like that of the [British press]. Rather, its mission is like Hyde Park. Therefore, we should not take the issue of the freedom of the press [in Egypt] seriously, for the aims of those who write in newspapers now are not much different from the aims of those who stand on soapboxes in Hyde Park. They aim at expressing their frustrations, suffering and animosities. And so, news is mixed with views, reality is mixed with fabricated stories, journalistic material are mixed with ads. All this has nothing to do with [real] journalism." Helmi Shaarawi wrote in the newly launched leftist daily Al-Badeel about the 55th anniversary of the revolution with passionate adulation about the ideals of the heady days of the 1960s. Shaarawi was critical of ideological and intellectual stagnation among Nasserists. He urged those who uphold the Nasser legacy of the revolution to display greater versatility. "There is no doubt that the Nasserists have the right to stick to the principles of the 23 July [Revolution] in their perspective of the world and the society. However, they now face global changes that necessitate [the introduction of] intellectual and political developments." However, Shaarawi did not mince his words. "The Nasserists should review their thoughts and standings," he stressed. Al-Wafd, the daily opposition mouthpiece of the liberal Al-Wafd Party, tackled the tricky question of the trials and tribulations of the students of Thanawiya Amma (secondary school certificate). "The crisis of top students in Thanawiya Amma ", ran the headline in Al-Wafd. "Ninety-seven per cent is the minimum grade [a student should have received] to join a top faculty." More than 1,000 students obtained 100 per cent grades in the final exams, and tens of thousands achieved 95 per cent." The paper wondered whether "with such remarkably high scores these students will be able to find suitable employment opportunities in the job market."
