It seemed clear from the program of the sixth annual conference of the ruling National Democratic Party in Egypt, which started yesterday and will go on until after tomorrow Monday, that the uproar roused by opposition circles over the presidential elections scheduled for 2011 has not caught the attention of the ruling party or of its major figures, and that the NDP is moving forward with its policies without paying notice to the raucous debate over the next president, considering that “the constitution and the law have set procedures for selecting the president, the date upon which candidacy can begin to be applied for, and the date of the elections”. It is true that the market of candidacies, for names which some consider to be suitable for the presidency, was not launched by existing parties. Rather, this task was carried out by the press and the media, and it is true that suggestions over dealing with the future – among them the suggestion put forth by writer Mohamed Hassanein Heikal of forming a council, of which President Hosni Mubarak would be a member, which would assume responsibility for a transitional period – are all suggestions that the party has paid no heed to and that opposition parties have also disagreed over. Yet what is also true and real is that no one so far has proposed specific amendments to the constitutional clauses concerned with selecting the President of the Republic, despite the fact that some of the major figures of the NDP agree with the opinion held by opposition forces that the amendments that were introduced in 2005 to Article 76 of the constitution, which made selecting the president take place by free elections between several candidates and not by a system of referendum, still place severe restrictions on the process of candidacy and restrict eligibility to specific names from among the members of the high councils of existing parties in the country, making independent candidacy to the post impossible. It was no mystery to expect the stance of the ruling party on the initiatives and suggestions which recently spread and multiplied, and it is strange that most of them were demanding that the ruling party and the president himself give up some of their power or exceeding the articles of the constitution in vigor in the country on the basis of “noble ends” that seek reassurance over the future of the country! What is surprising is that these suggestions have come from personalities that consider that the NDP will monopolize power and refuse to give opposition parties a chance. How can these personalities then ask that the party itself give up its monopoly? And instead of opposition forces agreeing to form a council, a committee or a formal body that would include them and seek to amend the constitution or to change it entirely, they have addressed the ruling party asking it to relinquish power or to allow others to share in its power! And instead of the opposition forming a force that would pressure the NDP and its government, it has become a ludicrous matter where not a week goes by anymore without ideas and names being put forth, or impractical suggestions that cannot be applied in reality. Someone even made a joke, when finding the NDP unaffected by the issue, saying that the National Party itself might be behind the spread of such a climate to prove that it alone is able to put forth a real candidate for the presidency. There is no point among those that will be addressed at the NDP conference concerned with the presidential elections that will take place in two years, and the party will most likely announce the name of its candidate for these elections at the conference that will be held next year. As for the official opposition forces, those that have not been granted legitimacy like the Muslim Brotherhood or the media outlets that seek to explore the nature of the future, it seems that they will continue to play the same old game until they are surprised with a situation they have not accounted for. This has happened many times and it is not unlikely for it to happen again. Indeed, when opposition forces were putting forth initiatives and suggestions aimed at pressuring the ruling regime to appoint a Vice President, they were surprised by the amendment to Article 76 of the constitution and by the abolition of the system of referendum over a single candidate for presidency. And when they demanded a new constitution for the country, yet another constitutional amendment took place, one that did not include a limit to the term of a president in office. Today they put forth names unfit for the presidency and scenarios for the future of the country, without their ruckus having any impact on the ruling regime. It is certain that there is a tremendous gap between the views held by the opposition and what the ruling party can cause in terms of changes to the map of politics in the country, not just because the NDP does not want real changes that would make the system of rule truly presidential or parliamentary, but also because opposition forces have proved that their practices are even weaker than they are, while they believe that what they are doing will strengthen them.
