Young 26-year-old Shaheer Ishak is calm and relaxed. He speaks near perfect English and looks like a typical Egyptian youth. The difference is that Ishak is a candidate in the November 28 elections in Egypt. As he fields questions in between phone calls and party officials asking logistical inquiries, it becomes apparent this young man is on top of his game. Running in Cairo's Heliopolis district as a member of the Egypt Freedom Party, Ishak is an oddity in Egyptian politics. He's Coptic, the son of one of the most known figures in the country George Ishak, but at the heart of his message is one of liberalism, pluralism and tolerance. His goal, he said, is to “make Egypt better.” How did you, as a young and politically active individual, get to this point where you are now running for Parliament? In general, I was engaged with politics, but in different ways. I am a graduate of economics and political science from Cairo University, so this is part of my major interests. I am interested in politics, since college, and I was mainly engaged in student activities. It was more about raising awareness and creating more critical knowledge of politics and structure. I think it's one of the main student activities at Cairo University and even at the American University. It has created many knowledgeable politicians and many activists in a way. You were active with Kefaya and then the National Association for Change, two leading activist movements, but never took a leadership role. Why now? I didn't find myself fitting into the structure of the organization, because as I'm a bit critical. Actually, even before the revolution started, I wrote an article [not published] being very critical of these movements not being able to have strategic goals. Although they are good on the streets and the new culture, I was a bit critical of how they didn't have a concrete vision. Actually, this proved true when the revolution happened. There was no organized structure that represented the people. So, I didn't find myself there. I feel more comfortable in settings where there is a long-term vision and goals and this is what happened. But now after the revolution, you have been very involved? After the revolution, like many youth, I felt this was a promising time for me to translate my knowledge and experience into a more structured politics and I came across Dr. Amr Hamzawy, who's been mentor and even friend through from college and we talked about this political party and I felt that maybe it was the right time for political parties to emerge to offer clear programs and policy solutions, rather than just talking about reform in the banners and titles. So I was very excited about the project and it fulfills my goals. Being able to establish it from the start and to find most of my values and principles in it encouraged me to do so. What separates the Egypt Freedom party from others out there? When we first gathered around, we decided to put two main goals. We want to create an innovative internal structure of democratic structures and we don't even want to focus it on simply elections, but also to create decentralized structures in the governorates. And these decentralized structures both fiscally and management wise, because usually decentralized structures, whether in parties or the State, usually happen on the managerial side. And also to ensure there are no businessmen monopolizing the political party. This is a very important distinction from parties that exist. We put a ceiling on funding at 200,000 Egyptian pounds, ensuring annual donations should not exceed 200,000 LE, making us more dependent on smaller donations. It definitely affected our ability to fundraise, but it's very important for our internal democracy that the decision-making process is really dependent on members and leadership of the party rather than money, because this is usually what happens, it becomes implicit influence. We are not depending on one source of funding. We don't want to come after the revolution and ask for democracy, but we ourselves have weak democratic structures. And that's why until now we don't have a president of the party. We have a high board consisting of 20 members and they are the ones who take the decisions of the party through voting of the majority. It's a liberal party, and there seems to be no qualms about saying so. Why has the party pushed this so much? We don't want to hide away from liberal values the concept. But we also want to connect with the social liberal stream through a liberal part that believes in social justice and strongly committed to it. Also, we are a liberal party who is not skeptical or scared of the Islamists or Muslim Brotherhood. Out of the true conviction of liberal values we believe in the right for every political ideology and idea to be represented in the political scene as long as they are committed to the democratic process. We did not create a liberal policy to be against the Islamists. We are doing it in the positive sense of politics. And we believe the liberal stream is really a part of the Egyptian society. We want to remove the stigma of liberalism after a lot of parties have shied away from the term. It's about respecting the values of society and widening the choices for people. Are people responsive to the party? Do they like what you are saying? We are still moving. Maybe the area I live in and around there, the people are probably more responsive to liberal values than other areas. So my task to accept liberal values is a bit easier. The competition might actually come between liberal parties. But don't you think that is a bad thing to face off two liberal parties? I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's important for people to witness pluralism. In general we wanted to avoid the divide between liberal and Islamist and secular at this point in time. This was a more important political message. That is why we entered into an alliance, called the Revolution Continues, which is from every sector of society. We have the left; we have those who might be affiliated with Islamic thought; but our key battle now is the revolution, to sustain the revolution and bring it forward. This is like what happened in Tahrir. In Tahrir, nobody asked whether you were a liberal or a Christian or a Muslim, so we want to bring this spirit back through our alliance. It's about the revolution. We see those who want to be in favor of the revolution and those who are against it, so whoever is on the side of the revolution and wants to build a solid democratic state and building social justice and a progressive nation that we are seeking, whether leftist or Islamist, I am with it for the time being. So the next part of the revolution is about what exactly? The next five year phase is about fixing what happened over the past years. It is not about ideological differences and the debates. This will come at a later time. Now we are at the stage of national unity and national consensus and creating a constitution that represents all political opinions and in building a state that brings people together. We want to rebuild the state, which has been collapsing for the past 30 years, if not 50 or 60. You mention national unity, but in recent months, Egypt seems to have become more divided. Exactly. So with less than a few weeks until the vote, how can parties and individual candidates bridge that divide? We want this alliance to be a reminder to people, a seed, of the importance of national unity. This alliance for me, more important than electoral victory, is the political message we are offering. As long as people want to keep the movement from Tahrir Square, I want to keep it and move forward. I won't be on the side of polarization. It's the time of coming together, not division. Let's build the foundation for a democratic state. You talk of democratic institutions, but how can you have an election with a military in power that is inherently undemocratic? I think that when it comes to the military, the problem is their monopoly on decision-making. It is very important for the next parliament to create national consensus, and if they can do this we will have a strong elected body. If we do this, then the military will not be able to keep control. The military has been able to monopolize the scene is because a lack of national consensus and no elected bodies. If we had those national bodies that manage to create national consensus, this will create a strong ability to govern. BM
