Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Reconciliation will not include the Brotherhood.. Hossam Badrawi to Al-Jazeera Net: The state must use the expertise of all Egyptians
Hossam Badrawi, National Dialogue Adviser to Egypt’s Vision 2030, told Al-Jazeera Net that dialogue in any country does not mean a constitutional amendment, a change of government, or early elections because it is not a goal of dialogue, adding that it is not right for every dialogue to have this concept.
CAIRO – Hossam Badrawi, National Dialogue Adviser to Vision “Egypt 2030”, said that raising the ceiling of freedoms is the goal of the national dialogue called for by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi at the end of last Ramadan.
Badrawi, who was the last Secretary-General of the ruling National Party during the era of the late President Hosni Mubarak, supported – in his dialogue with Al-Jazeera Net – initiatives to settle the conditions of detainees and the return of opponents from abroad, stressing the need to respect freedom of opinion as long as it was within the framework of the constitution and the law.
He said that any reconciliation would not include the Muslim Brotherhood because it is prohibited by law, and at the same time called for benefiting from the accumulated experiences of members of the National Party unless judicial rulings were issued against them.
Are there disagreements within the authority about the degree of political openness required, as stated by Kamal Abu Aita, George Ishaq, and other members of the amnesty and national dialogue committees?
For me, there is no ceiling for dialogue or criticism, which happened during meetings with more than one media outlet, and I was not exposed to any alerts from the political leadership about my various conversations, and I see that the national dialogue is a good opportunity to raise the ceiling of freedoms and expression of opinion, and that the differences between the ruling authority and the opposition Continuing, but in the context of construction, not demolition.
Recently, several initiatives have been issued to settle the conditions of detainees and those released, and even to return dissidents from abroad. How do you see the future of such initiatives?
These are good initiatives and I support them, but in the context of political action, I see that opinion should not be confiscated as long as there is no charge that brings a person to trial, so he must enjoy his freedom guaranteed by the constitution, and I hope that the national dialogue will address the issue of pretrial detention and how it is a precautionary measure and not a punishment that an individual receives for expressing his opinion , as long as there is no charge against any citizen who is arrested and brought to trial.
Pretrial detention must have a time limit and there should be no open pretrial detention. These are clear-cut issues linked to the government’s philosophy that recognizes freedom of expression as part of citizenship and part of respect for the constitution.
Critics believe that the release of detainees for political initiatives, despite the enormity of the accusations against them, defames the rest of the cases and repeated accusations against dissidents and activists, and the most dangerous thing is that it defames the independence of the judiciary. How do you see that?
The release of detainees is the release of those who have not been charged and entered the court arena, and the meaning of a remand prisoner is that he is a person who has not been brought to justice, and the philosophy of dialogue must be the freedom of individuals unless the agencies are unable to bring them to justice on a fixed charge, and that pretrial detention is subject to a specific period according to the law However, the release of a prisoner who was judicially granted a presidential pardon is another matter for the presidency.
After talking about political openness internally and settling external disputes, is it possible for Egypt to witness societal reconciliation as stipulated in the constitution, including the current of political Islam?
If political Islam is meant by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned by law, then reconciliation will not include it. But if what is meant by it is the religious orientations of citizens as long as they are not used to obtain political gain or have a judicial ruling, then they are welcome, because citizens are equal, have the same rights and have the same duties. There was no legal text that prevented him from working and national participation, but those who stir up chaos and conspire against the country cannot be accepted into any reconciliation initiative.
If amending the constitution or early parliamentary and presidential elections, and other essential matters, are excluded from the dialogue, then what is the agenda of the dialogue, and will it discuss marginal matters that will not affect the political or economic track, according to the opponents’ vision?
Dialogue in any country in the world does not mean a constitutional amendment, a change of government, or early elections, because it is not the goal of dialogue. The dialogue lays philosophical foundations for future work, but no one touched on the discussion of early elections, and it is not right that this concept should be behind every dialogue.
Political dialogue means commitment to the principles of the modern civil state and the end of the transitional period that the country went through after 2013, and the assertion that Egypt is a modern, civil constitutional state in which power must be transferred peacefully within a fixed-term framework, and opposition is allowed and characterized by transparency, disclosure, and accountability from parliament and the media, which is what I see important in the national dialogue.
One of the most important issues in the national dialogue is the pillar on which the modern state is based, which is justice, and by justice I mean the judiciary first, then the justice services that are provided to the masses and must be easy, accessible and quick, and the procedures for applying the law on the part of the police and public prosecution services.
This is dialogue from my point of view, justice and a future political vision that allows for alternatives to civil rule, in addition to Egypt’s Vision 2030.
President El-Sisi stressed a lot that his projects and vision for development were planned by previous governments, but they were unable to implement them. Some link this to Gamal Mubarak’s vision for development. What are the similarities and differences between the two visions? Do you see that as a defect or a natural accumulation of successive governments?
President Sisi was honest in saying and acknowledging this, and that it is necessary to build on the accumulation of experience, to admit mistakes when they occur, and to strive to fix them. However, Vision 2030 was not supervised by Gamal Mubarak, because it was issued in 2016 and was worked on by experts in 2014, meaning that it was issued after the January revolution.
The goals of Vision 2030 and their clarification is my main role in the national dialogue, and it must shift from Vision 2030 to Vision 2050, and the apparatus that follows up on its implementation is established so that we do not make the mistake of setting the vision without implementing it or announcing its results.
There are previous visions that were put forward and we benefited from some of them, and we are now working on a challenge
