The four Egyptian opposition parties that have formed a coalition in the face of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) might succeed at formulating a document in which they would specify their demands for constitutional reform in the country at the end of their conference today, a conference which has gone on for three days. Nevertheless, the “document” will not conceal the size of the contradiction between the four parties: the New Wafd Party, the National Progressive Unionist Party (Tagammu), the Nasserist Party and the Democratic Front Party. Indeed, such contradiction has reached an extent that was not easy to conceal or to overcome during the interventions that took place yesterday at the conference, as it affected the image of the four parties on the one hand, and the forefront of the discussion itself on the other. It is true that the principles followed by the four parties are not supposed to be identical, and it is only natural for their programs to disagree, and for the views of their leaders to represent different perspectives on the issues relating to Egypt. However, the discussions that took place at the conference – whether between the four party leaders or their guests, major figures of the opposition, independents or members of other parties that did not join the coalition – has shown the extent to which partisan opposition in Egypt suffers from illnesses that have become incurable. Indeed, the disputes are not just over programs or views, but even about the language being used and perhaps about intentions. Moreover, the verbal altercations that took place between some of those attending the conference seemed to reflect the extent of what coalition forces harbor for each other in terms of hatred and opposition to one another, perhaps exceeding their opposition to the ruling party. Indeed, the terms that were used were not based in differences of opinion, and they are terms that are usually used by parties who wish each other no good. It is only natural for there to be a greater distance between Egyptian opposition parties and the ruling National Party. Indeed, almost all opposition parties accuse the NDP of besieging them, monopolizing power and passing the laws that guarantee the victory of NDP candidates in any elections. Furthermore, the constitutional amendments which were made in 2005, and which the opposition consider to consecrate the NDP's hegemony on power and to ensure the victory of its candidate to the presidential elections over the candidates of other parties, have placed all partisan and non-partisan opposition forces in a position of confrontation with the ruling party, the most prominent figures of which have asserted that the constitution would not be amended before the coming parliamentary elections, or even before the presidential elections scheduled next year. However, it is not at all natural for the fixation on former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Doctor Mohammad El-Baradei to dominate the discussion at an opposition conference to a point exceeding the topics which the four parties had gathered to discuss, resulting in the feeling prevailing among those following the conference that the coalition had been formed with the aim of asserting that the four parties would not join Baradei's movement, which demands constitutional reform as well, and that one of the points of the conference was to show that legal parties are the only way through which the march of change can pass and that those gathered around Baradei cannot achieve what opposition parties will achieve, even in years. Baradei seemed more present than the ruling National Party and the leaders of the four parties seemed very keen on proving two contradictory points: the first being that there is no connection between them and Baradei now nor will there be in the future, and the second that they are not responsible for refusing to join Baradei's movement, and that it was he and those with him who chose to part ways and to walk the path of reform without the legal parties. The leaders of the four parties laid down the headlines of constitutional reform, and they do not diverge from those demanded by all the other opposition forces. Nonetheless, agreement between the parties of the coalition only appeared in these headlines, which are no different from those of any other opposition. In fact, some of the prominent figures of the National Party itself have often appeared in the media and expressed their conviction of the necessity of amending the constitution and of achieving further progress towards democracy. Thus, agreement between the four parties over matters other that the headlines of reform was necessary, yet not all that is necessary is always achieved.
