Like millions of Egyptians, I was both happy and proud after our victory in the Africa Cup of Nations. Victory in any field creates happiness and inspires hope, and is most often the result of serious, organized teamwork. Luck alone does not lead to achievement. If it does, the achievement is short lived. The victory of the Egyptian football team was a genuine achievement because it was the fruit of scientific planning, teamwork, and serious efforts by highly responsible and fully competent leaders. As such, this accomplishment will likely usher in more successes. The fact that Egypt's football team became one of the top ten in the world only affirms the authenticity of that achievement. But my first concern is politics, the condition of which, unlike football, is not satisfactory. Our football success tempted me, like many other writers, to draw a comparison between Egypt's performance in these two fields. My thesis is that our success in football can be explained primarily by the democratic way in which football affairs are managed. It follows, therefore, that the lack of democracy in Egyptian political life has led to our current political failure. In football, there are normally several sports clubs, and in politics several political parties. The goal is to form a national team, the equivalent of which is a government in politics. In football, there are major clubs that compete in the Egyptian Premier League and other less competent teams. Similarly, in politics, there are parties like the National Democratic, Wafd, Tagammu, Nasserist and other smaller parties. The first reason for our football success is that the national team is not monopolized by one club. In contrast, our government has been monopolized by one party for more than thirty years. There are 23 football players making up our national team—which is close to the number of members of government—but those 23 players belong to nine different clubs—six players from Al Ahly, five from Zamalek, two from Ismaili, three from Enpi, two from Mansoura, one from each of Al Masry, Haras el-Hedoud, Petrojet, and el-Ettehad el-Sakandari. On the other hand, the members of our political elite belong to one club. Such has been the case for almost half a century. Now if Al Ahly, for example, had monopolized the national football team, this would have deprived the national team of other skilled and capable players belonging to other clubs. This would necessarily weaken Al Ahly clubs and even the other teams due to the lack of competition. The second reason behind our football success and political failure is that football fans of every stripe can express their support or their disappointment freely. Those fans watch and cheer for their teams, unhindered by police officers or state security forces. People interested in political work are, on the other hand, dealt with firmly. When hundreds of thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets over the two past weeks to celebrate the victory, state security forces did not interfere. However, when 30 young people arrived in Naga Hammadi on Friday 15 January, 2010 to express their condolences to the families of the victims of the Christmas terrorist act, state security forces arrested them because there were "more than five persons assembled in one place." When it comes to the national and other club teams, talent, competence and skill determine the selection of players. Never has state security interfered in favor of well-connected player nor is there inheritance of power in football. Only competence counts. In the world of football, not only is public opinion aware of everything that goes on, but it actually shapes decisions concerning the choice of players, the formation of clubs, and the evaluation of performance. In fact, spectators are what make football matches what they are. Their support and encouragement are part and parcel of the game. In undemocratic political regimes, such transparency is lacking. Political decisions are made behind closed doors, and several bodies operate secretly under pretexts such as "national interest." Then, there is accountability. Unlike in politics, when there is some failure, officials on the different teams are held responsible and punished if necessary. Often, a failure will lead to a change in the team's coach or club official, especially because club members and spectators monitor the performance of their teams. The same applies to football matches. Reward and punishment take place on the spot starting with yellow cards and ending with red card expulsions. In politics, many mistakes are covered up or go unnoticed. Decisions that harm the public interest may not be adequately penalized. Files can remain closed for years and may never be opened. Finally, sports clubs hold genuine elections, with real competition and high rates of participation, again unlike politics. It's true that those elections are sometimes tampered by external intervention, and can end up being resolved in the courts. Still, however, they are in a much better position than political parties. Powers awaiting a chance to pounce on those parties are usually fiercer, and there is usually a need for greater efforts to preserve the cohesion of those parties and their internal structures. The monopoly of power and leadership seems to be a characteristic of all political parties--severely restricting their democratic practice. It should be quite understandable now why sports clubs have succeeded where political parties have failed. Translated from the Arabic Edition.
