Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Ali’s coffee shop “Dreamers of Tomorrow” This is what I want from the national dialogue Hossam Badrawi
For the success of any dialogue, it is necessary to agree on its previous determinants, and to set a framework within which we can talk. I suggest that this be the constitution and Egypt’s Vision 2030 announced by the President of the Republic in 2015.

Let us start with the principles of the Constitution, which came in the following preamble:
We are now writing a constitution that completes the construction of a modern democratic state, with a civilian government.
The political system is based on 1- political and partisan pluralism, 2- the peaceful transfer of power, 3- separation of powers and balance between them, 4- responsibility and power,
5- Respect for human rights and freedoms, as stated in the constitution.
These are the preamble to the constitution and Article Five of it, which was approved by the Egyptian people by an overwhelming majority in 2014. Neither this preamble nor Article Five were amended in 2019. So the constitution is our reference in managing and preserving Egypt. There are articles in the constitution that we have to preserve, and articles that we have not applied and put in the framework of application, such as the decentralized political form of running the country, and most of what is related to the separation of powers and the balance between them, and the method of applying justice and respecting freedoms.
So the basis is building a modern democratic civil state, which, by definition, has a government that preserves and protects all members of society regardless of their national, religious or intellectual affiliations, and protects privacy and freedom of expression. There are several principles that should be available in the civil state, and if one of them is missing, the conditions of that state will not be fulfilled. The most important of them is that that state is based on
Peace, tolerance, acceptance of the other, equality in rights and duties, and respect for contracts, so as to guarantee the rights of all citizens, not as a gift from the ruler but as a right that he must preserve, and do not allow some members of society to impose themselves as volunteers, and do not accept difference and pluralism and impose their culture on others under Religious cloak.
Let us think about what was mentioned in the preamble to the constitution and make it a basis for dialogue and ask ourselves frankly how we can achieve this. Why have not been achieved articles of the Constitution so far? Do we need a re-discussion, or accountability for the government??
If we do not agree on the umbrella that protects society that came in the constitution, then the dialogue will be random and chaotic, in which the opinion will be imposed by the loudest and most organized. And we must beware of protecting dialogue from some who see, and it may be with good intentions, but wrongly, that stability and the safety of society come with stillness and non-change and avoid opening the doors of pluralism. The easiest for those who do not have the ability to convince others is to strive for one thought, to impose obedience, and to narrow the choices.
Dialogue in this direction will aim to support the continuation of the situation as it is, as if change means that they were wrong.
In fact, I understand the philosophy of the state’s intervention in the transitional phase that followed the tragedy of religious rule, to fill the political vacuum for fear of
Chaos . I also understand, by virtue of political experience, that stripping the power of some of those who enjoyed vast powers during the transitional period will not be easy, and many of them will cling to the powers they had, which is the nature of human beings because they are beneficiaries of reality.
The same logic and philosophy will govern the clergy when we ask them to change the curriculum of religious discourse and they are the beneficiaries of its existence…
Change will not come from these and those, or with their consent, which is the role of the country’s political leadership, which, just as it responded to the people’s call on June 30, must respond to the citizens’ right to consolidate the foundations of the new, modern civil republic, and this is what I see in the president’s position in his call for dialogue.
The pillars of the modern state are based on two principles, the first of which is justice and the non-selective application of law, and the second is sustainable human development.
If this is our approach to dialogue, then it is welcome. Either if we are going to turn around with the aim of winning an argument or achieving the goals of empowering one group or institution over another, or keeping the situation as it is, then the dialogue will not succeed.
A bright young man said to me: So you consider that the essence of the dialogue is political, Doctor! I said: Yes, the system of government determines everything, my son….. and administration
The state is the function of its government, and if we think about what civilization established through education and experience, it is that the peaceful transfer of power and the acceptance of accountability from the representatives of the people is what we must discuss about how to apply it.
Experience has taught me that it is necessary to identify the challenges that stand in the way of our ability to build this future, and I believe that what will undermine the path of the modern civil state that we seek is the reactionary Salafist infiltration that we have allowed to hold members of society accountable for their privacy and their relationship with their Lord and impose their culture on them without interference from Run the country decisively and unequivocally to protect its people. I observe two groups in society who raise their voices with noise and make us think that they are the majority, when they are not. The Brotherhood and the Salafists against whom society revolted after one year of religious rule, and the Nasserites (despite my love and respect for their people) and the leftists who still call for principles whose factory was closed in the Soviet Union and are still its agents in Egypt..and they want to return society to state ownership of production tools and banish the private sector from Economic equation, accusing and criminalizing him permanently.
Why do I mention this in the context of an article about the national dialogue, for two reasons: the first is that the Nasserists came to the scene suddenly, and brought them to the platform of dialogue in a clear way that is not hidden from the eye, and the second is not to mention the basic fact in the content of the call for dialogue, that Islam
The politician is the main opponent of the modern, democratic, civil state.. The opposite of civil rule is religious rule that uses religion and belief to achieve political powers and does not recognize citizenship except for those who follow their religion. It is a dictatorial rule armed with religion.. and the other opposite is the dictatorial rule that is armed with a human ideology that imposes on me The people, as it was the communist rule that failed, collapsed and fell. The third opposite is any dictatorial regime that is armed with intimidation of the people to impose the will of a group of them to rule.
For the success of any dialogue, it is necessary to agree on its previous determinants, and to set a framework within which we can talk. I suggest that this be the constitution and Egypt’s Vision 2030 announced by the President of the Republic in 2015.

Let us start with the principles of the Constitution, which came in the following preamble:
We are now writing a constitution that completes the construction of a modern democratic state, with a civilian government.
The political system is based on 1- political and partisan pluralism, 2- the peaceful transfer of power, 3- separation of powers and balance between them, 4- responsibility and power,
5- Respect for human rights and freedoms, as stated in the constitution.
These are the preamble to the constitution and Article Five of it, which was approved by the Egyptian people by an overwhelming majority in 2014. Neither this preamble nor Article Five were amended in 2019. So the constitution is our reference in managing and preserving Egypt. There are articles in the constitution that we have to preserve, and articles that we have not applied and put in the framework of application, such as the decentralized political form of running the country, and most of what is related to the separation of powers and the balance between them, and the method of applying justice and respecting freedoms.
So the basis is building a modern democratic civil state, which, by definition, has a government that preserves and protects all members of society regardless of their national, religious or intellectual affiliations, and protects privacy and freedom of expression. There are several principles that should be available in the civil state, and if one of them is missing, the conditions of that state will not be fulfilled. The most important of them is that that state is based on
Peace, tolerance, acceptance of the other, equality in rights and duties, and respect for contracts, so as to guarantee the rights of all citizens, not as a gift from the ruler but as a right that he must preserve, and do not allow some members of society to impose themselves as volunteers, and do not accept difference and pluralism and impose their culture on others under Religious cloak.
Let us think about what was mentioned in the preamble to the constitution and make it a basis for dialogue and ask ourselves frankly how we can achieve this. Why have not been achieved articles of the Constitution so far? Do we need a re-discussion, or accountability for the government??
If we do not agree on the umbrella that protects society that came in the constitution, then the dialogue will be random and chaotic, in which the opinion will be imposed by the loudest and most organized. And we must beware of protecting dialogue from some who see, and it may be with good intentions, but wrongly, that stability and the safety of society come with stillness and non-change and avoid opening the doors of pluralism. The easiest for those who do not have the ability to convince others is to strive for one thought, to impose obedience, and to narrow the choices.
Dialogue in this direction will aim to support the continuation of the situation as it is, as if change means that they were wrong.
In fact, I understand the philosophy of the state’s intervention in the transitional phase that followed the tragedy of religious rule, to fill the political vacuum for fear of
Chaos . I also understand, by virtue of political experience, that stripping the power of some of those who enjoyed vast powers during the transitional period will not be easy, and many of them will cling to the powers they had, which is the nature of human beings because they are beneficiaries of reality.
The same logic and philosophy will govern the clergy when we ask them to change the curriculum of religious discourse and they are the beneficiaries of its existence…
Change will not come from these and those, or with their consent, which is the role of the country’s political leadership, which, just as it responded to the people’s call on June 30, must respond to the citizens’ right to consolidate the foundations of the new, modern civil republic, and this is what I see in the president’s position in his call for dialogue.
The pillars of the modern state are based on two principles, the first of which is justice and the non-selective application of law, and the second is sustainable human development.
If this is our approach to dialogue, then it is welcome. Either if we are going to turn around with the aim of winning an argument or achieving the goals of empowering one group or institution over another, or keeping the situation as it is, then the dialogue will not succeed.
A bright young man said to me: So you consider that the essence of the dialogue is political, Doctor! I said: Yes, the system of government determines everything, my son….. and administration
The state is the function of its government, and if we think about what civilization established through education and experience, it is that the peaceful transfer of power and the acceptance of accountability from the representatives of the people is what we must discuss about how to apply it.
Experience has taught me that it is necessary to identify the challenges that stand in the way of our ability to build this future, and I believe that what will undermine the path of the modern civil state that we seek is the reactionary Salafist infiltration that we have allowed to hold members of society accountable for their privacy and their relationship with their Lord and impose their culture on them without interference from Run the country decisively and unequivocally to protect its people. I observe two groups in society who raise their voices with noise and make us think that they are the majority, when they are not. The Brotherhood and the Salafists against whom society revolted after one year of religious rule, and the Nasserites (despite my love and respect for their people) and the leftists who still call for principles whose factory was closed in the Soviet Union and are still its agents in Egypt..and they want to return society to state ownership of production tools and banish the private sector from Economic equation, accusing and criminalizing him permanently.
Why do I mention this in the context of an article about the national dialogue, for two reasons: the first is that the Nasserists came to the scene suddenly, and brought them to the platform of dialogue in a clear way that is not hidden from the eye, and the second is not to mention the basic fact in the content of the call for dialogue, that Islam
The politician is the main opponent of the modern, democratic, civil state.. The opposite of civil rule is religious rule that uses religion and belief to achieve political powers and does not recognize citizenship except for those who follow their religion. It is a dictatorial rule armed with religion.. and the other opposite is the dictatorial rule that is armed with a human ideology that imposes on me The people, as it was the communist rule that failed, collapsed and fell. The third opposite is any dictatorial regime that is armed with intimidation of the people to impose the will of a group of them to rule.
