For years opposition parties repeatedly called for reform, but their calls went largely unheeded. Today they are seeking change. Fatemah Farag listens in on an increasingly radicalised debate "I do not think there can be reform of the political system within the framework of the current regime," opined Noman Gomaa, chairman of the Wafd Party. He spoke on the occasion of the 28th anniversary of the left-leaning Tagammu Party, an event which initiated an inter-party debate seeking to establish a programme of political, economic and social change. It was also attended by Diaaeddin Dawoud, representing the Nasserist Party, and Chairman of the Press Syndicate Galal Aref, among others. "The programme was first publicly released by the party on 17 April. The plan now is to discuss this programme with the largest number of political actors including political parties and civil society organisations," Hussein Abdel-Razeq, secretary-general of the Tagammu Party, told Al- Ahram Weekly. "And mind you, this is a programme about change and not reform," emphasised Abdel-Razeq. "Reform means sewing patches over the tatters of the current system. But we mean fundamental change." A copy of the programme obtained by the Weekly explains that "for many years Egypt has been suffering from the lack of democracy and the monopoly of wealth and power by a few. This has resulted in increased corruption and a frightening escalation in economic and social crises as well as low levels of development." The situation in Egypt and the Arab world at large has come under direct scrutiny following the United States' George W Bush administration's announcement of the Greater Middle East Initiative. "In response to this initiative the liberals of the Arab world came together and issued the Alexandria Declaration. The Muslim Brotherhood has also announced their own initiative. However, what all of these have in common is that at their core is an acceptance of liberal economic theory. What can make our initiative unique -- that of the left -- is the connection made between democracy and economic empowerment and development," said Salah Adel of the Tagammu Party. Adel addressed a group of civil society activists, including representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, who attended a workshop organised by the Tagammu on 27 April to discuss their initiative. To the Weekly, Abdel-Razeq was keen to point out that the process initiated by the party is by no means new. "In 2003, a plan of action was adopted by the Committee for the Defence of Democracy which defined 2005 -- when the presidential referendum and parliamentary elections will be held -- as a crucial year for the opposition and making 2004 a year to take organised action towards change," he said. Sayed Abdel-Aal, member of the Tagammu Central Committee, also emphasised that "the programme now being discussed is in fact a part of the general party programme agreed upon 28 years ago. What is new now is that it is being presented as an independent paper and that the party is now openly calling for a parliamentary republic." Medhat El-Zahed, senior journalist for the party's mouthpiece newspaper Al-Ahali, noted that "of course we do not think that the US has a democratic project for the region. What they have brought to the region so far is an Israeli occupation in Palestine and an American occupation in Iraq. However, the regime is under pressure, resulting in a wider margin for us to manoeuvre and promote our understanding of democratisation. So while I oppose the American agenda, I do not oppose the need for change." The programme identifies four basic principles within the framework of which democracy can be attained: the peaceful transfer of authority via free and fair parliamentary elections, the protection of civil and human rights, the establishment of independent and democratic institutions based on popular participation and elections and freedom to create civil society organisations. "Of course political discourse on its own motivates no one," admitted El-Zahed. "The political elite that has come together during past few days to discuss these ideas can't bring about change or reform. Not because they are bad, but because, on their own, they are powerless. The real challenge is the ability to mobilise those who have a stake in change -- the dispossessed in society." In the same vein, Tagammu's Magdi Abdel- Hamid argued that "if we really want to bring about change we must call on the people or else all of our efforts will hang in a vacuum." The need for mobilisation is not just about numbers but strategy. "In the past we made mistakes that need to be discussed," said Abdel- Hamid. "For example, the battle we undertook for the preservation of the public sector emphasised ownership and ignored labour rights. The result has been the fact that broad change in ownership did take place and the main battle -- that of labour -- was lost." With such limited space for civil action, is it at this point enough to call for the cancellation of the Emergency Law? What understanding of Arab unity can be realistically adopted? And how can an inclusive secular state be built? These are all questions that the ongoing debate seeks to tackle. Indeed, the debate could not come at a more crucial time. In the words of Aref, "We are at a fork in the road when all of the masks have fallen ... We must re-arrange our national cards. It is not enough to criticise the US and Israel. We are up against a battle in which we either choose to exist or not, either to resist or not."
