National Dialogue in Egypt: A Missed Opportunity - Dr. Nivine Obeid
(Researcher and Rapporteur of the Population Committee in the National Dialogue)
Dialogue, a democratic principle, is not just a tool for countries in crisis, but a cornerstone of stability in all democracies. As political and social change groups, we should elevate dialogue to the same level of importance as direct elections, voting integrity, and ballot box security.
Undoubtedly, the need for dialogue increases in countries witnessing impediments to democratic transformation, weak parliamentary representation, and reduced space for freedom of opinion, expression, and organizational efficiency. Dialogue can represent an opportunity for them to practice democracy, create a wider margin for freedom of expression, and be an incentive to develop organization and representation.
But when is dialogue influential and effective, reflecting a state of political and social democratic action and practice?
Looking at international experiences with national dialogue, most seem to have come in three tracks: dialogue to prevent violence and ensure peaceful coexistence in the case of South Africa and Algeria, dialogue to confront challenges after democratic transition in the case of Spain, and dialogue to respond to external pressures in Guinea.
Despite multiple indicators of the effectiveness of dialogue in previous experiences, we will address two essential indicators to measure the effectiveness of democratic practice and achieve the goals behind national dialogue in the observed international models. It would allow us to partially understand Egypt's experiences in national dialogue, including more recently.
In this reading, we chose to focus on the following two indicators. The first relates to the political will of the dialogue parties to make it a success and reach satisfactory solutions or a binding roadmap. The second, equally important, is ensuring freedom of organization for all. Moreover, it is crucial to provide a general climate that not only welcomes dialogue but also fosters freedom of expression.
Despite the importance of the South African experience, the dialogue experiences in Algeria and Spain are also inspiring, whether the process itself and the need to represent influential parties in achieving political stability or regarding the dialogue’s results and reaching effective solutions. Algeria has absorbed its experience with the civil war, and everyone has the political will to establish stability and build the state as the only party with the legitimacy to possess weapons.
Within the framework of this understanding, they extended bridges of dialogue with political organizations. They set qualifying conditions for the national dialogue’s success, mainly surrendering weapons and abandoning violence on the one hand and releasing political detainees not involved in violent crimes on the other. Despite the need for a comprehensive vision in monitoring the multiple reasons for the success of the experiment, the keenness of the most influential parties in resolving the crisis created a path to salvation for the dialogue. It contributed significantly to creating a general political and social climate that supported the experiment.
In Spain, dialogue was not a result of the country going through a bloody experience. Rather, it was meant to solve the unemployment and inflation crisis after transitioning to a democratic system that tended towards market policies, which revealed the need for adequate representation for labor unions and businessmen. It also paved the way for influential results such as reaching the "Veklo Agreement" in preparation for changing the constitution and stipulating the role of unions as a genuine partner in the decision-making process.
Algeria and Spain’s experiences prove that dialogue can be an effective mechanism to resolve crises, provided that the parties have the political will, the public sphere is qualified, and the path is seriously paved for its results.
Egypt has had its share of national dialogue experiences. After 1952, each president called for a national dialogue, bringing together the various parties. According to observations, the dialogue experiences varied in their political motives and will and the organization of the parties active in them.
The first, in 1962, came from President Abdel Nasser to the Popular Forces Conference. The dialogue’s outcomes were in the form of the National Action Document, the preparation for the 1964 Constitution, and the aspiration for political elections. In 1974, President Sadat called for dialogue on the ten-point program known as the "October Paper" on the future of Egypt after the war. In 1982 and 1986, President Mubarak called for dialogue on political reform and the emergency law. In 2005, the call for dialogue focused on having presidential elections, not a referendum.
Out of the former experiences in Egypt, those of Abdel Nasser and Sadat could crystallize outcomes for the dialogue, at least through the National Action Document or the October Paper. However, the dialogue with Mubarak faltered. There were no results in stopping the emergency law that remained in effect throughout his years in power, nor any effective political reform, except for the primitive scene of the presidential elections. It came after decades of holding referendums on the position of the president and the continuation of secret negotiations with the Brotherhood over parliamentary seats away from the rest of the political forces and the goals of the national dialogue.
The same applies to some of the differences in the view of the national dialogue experience called for by President Sisi in 2023, which began in a tense political climate. Its parties have not yet forgiven the civil rights and freedoms violations the country went through after 2013. Instead, the intransigence increased and continued throughout the dialogue, robbing it of its most crucial indicators of effectiveness, the possibility of rooting political will and confidence for dialogue and achieving a form of transitional justice, which limited the hopes of the political forces to achieve significant results on the political, economic, and social levels. Thus, the dialogue began with a ceiling of minimal hopes and negotiations on reform and change with a weak and limited-effect exchange equation: participation in the dialogue in exchange for amnesty lists for detainees.
The participants' ambitions put aside real change in the electoral system, presidential and parliamentary. Their expectations of any tangible impact in changing economic policies. and providing greater participation for experts and parliaments in expressing opinions on economic decisions were low.
Nevertheless, all parties, official and opposition, were interested in social issues. The convictions of the civil democratic movement varied regarding the importance of discussing social issues such as family, population, education, health, and youth, in contrast to paying double attention to political issues related to providing public space and strengthening democracy. As for the official parties, they were not concerned with either of these matters as much as they were interested in perfecting the form of dialogue and flattening the outcomes.
Perhaps we should not forget that the recent dialogue experience did not come from an internal motive that reflects the official parties' awareness of the importance of dialogue and provides a horizon for an Egyptian experience of democratic transformation. Instead, it responded to external pressures to prevent Egypt from slipping into a new path of failure to guarantee their economic and political interests in the region.
However, the above does not mean the discussions are empty or the opposition participants are lazy in presenting possible alternatives. Rather, we must point out that in the face of this noise, the youth of the opposition parties and others have gained a new opportunity to reorganize their ranks, practice expressing their opinions, and provide a semi-safe space, like someone holding on to the curtain of the Kaaba, by practicing some of the rights of citizenship.
The recent experience of the national dialogue is considered a lost opportunity among many that could have drawn the curtain on a situation of total collapse and then provided an opportunity for cautious movement forward on a better path than the one the country is suffering now.
Dr. Nivine Obeid
