Badrawi writes: About the state of the country

Wherever I go, people ask me about the state of the country, and is there a way out of the impasse? Because most of the questions come in circumstances that do not allow for further discussion, I find nothing but simple sentences that give hope and point to Egypt’s great potential.

In fact, this issue requires political minds and accumulated experiences to define the definition of reality in order to be able to think about overcoming its difficulties.

Wisdom says that repeating the same thing in the same way and expecting different results is a path to failure.

As for the young people who dream of tomorrow, I can only respond extensively.

The always pessimistic young man said: Egypt has lived through different decades since the 52nd Revolution, around which circumstances have changed, and there are many ways to get out of the dilemmas of poverty, ignorance and the absence of freedoms to varying degrees, as well as violations of citizens’ rights with political or social selectivity. But careful observation shows that we revolve in cycles of political and economic trends that recognize each other and do not finish any of them and never reach the finish line in any of them. In any case, the situation is reversed, so we can start over from scratch and go back to what we went through before, waiting for different results. Rather, we have been arguing on the same issues and on the same grounds since the beginning of the twentieth century. And if we read what Imam Muhammad Abdo, Professor Al-Akkad, Dr. Taha Hussein, or the leaders of thought and culture over the years wrote about freedoms, the relationship of religion to the state, education, knowledge, social justice and other matters, we would find ourselves in the same point and sometimes lagging behind it after a hundred years of Evolution and development, what is the scourge of Egypt over the decades, doctor?

I said: The scourge of Egypt is to treat the symptom, not the disease, to escape from confronting the reality, which needs courage, perseverance, sustainability, responsibility and passion to change. And let me start with that all solutions must be motivated by political will and participation from the community, which will not happen without a leadership of understanding and a sustainable political orientation for a period that allows for influence.

So the beginning of politics and style of governance. No revolution will occur in any nation without a political leadership that is aware of the reality of reality and has solutions to overcome its difficulties. It has the political depth that makes the masses part of the solution and not its problem.

The girl, who is always looking for solutions, said: If we assume that what you say is true, then let us analyze how the country is run politically so that we put our orientations in the right place, and we do not revolve around a reality that we sometimes avoid talking about.

I said: In my humble opinion, and by virtue of the maturity of my political experience, the countries of the world are governed – with the exception of Switzerland and the countries of Northern Europe, and the democratic West is not excluded – by one or more of four influences:

Military power, represented by its armed force.

Economic and civil power, represented in its major companies from the private sector and its social institutions.

Religious ideology that drives society by God’s command and wipes people’s minds in his name.

The humanistic ideology brought by humans such as communism, Nazism or Zionism.

In fact, the Western society that we are looking at has reached a synthesis of understanding between its armed forces and representatives of the economic forces in it, a clear concept that makes governance civilian, but it is for a limited period, in which the space for freedoms and rights of citizens increases within a democratic framework with its limits, and in which the armed forces do not compete with civil society over Governance, where the wheel of deliberation in governance revolves clearly, and the armed forces retain their influence and respect and do not interfere in civilian rule.

The leftist young man said: Why did this not happen in Egypt when businessmen control its economy?

I said: In developing countries, including Egypt, civil society and economic forces are still considered competitors, not partners, in government. Whenever the private sector grows, changes come with revolutions or military coups to reduce it again, then call it inefficiency and corruption, but rather create a negative and sustainable mental image of it.

Religious ideology has proven in Egypt the stupidity of its leaders and its inappropriateness to the culture of the Egyptian people, who got rid of it in one year, which in the judgment of history is considered an exceptional act. But the people would not have got rid of them without the armed forces, which put the army in the position of absolute ruler who, whether we wanted or not, was a need in the context of getting rid of the rule of representatives of religious ideology.

How can the country use all its energies in development and all its human potential without a consensus between the armed forces that the country needs to protect with all its equipment and civil and economic society, without which the country becomes a hostage to a specific group in one institution?

Another young man intervened, saying: What is the definition of the modern civil state that we are looking for?

I said: The modern civil state is a state that preserves and protects all members of society, regardless of their national, religious or intellectual affiliations, and develops them. There are several principles that must be met in a civil state. If one of them is missing, the conditions of that state will not be fulfilled, the most important of which are:

That state is based on peace, tolerance, acceptance of the other, and equality in rights and duties, as it guarantees the rights of all citizens, not as a gift from the ruler, but as a right that it is his duty to preserve. The most important principles of the civil state are that no individual in it is subject to a violation of his rights, and is characterized by equal opportunities among citizens on declared bases, as well as faith and the application of the principle of citizenship, which means that an individual is not known by his profession, religion, territory, money or authority, but is defined by a social legal definition as “a citizen That is, he is a member of society with rights and duties. It is equal to all citizens.

One of the most important principles of the civil state is that it is not established by mixing religion with politics, nor does it antagonize or reject religion. Although religion remains in the civil state a factor in building morals and creating energy for work, achievement and progress, what the civil state rejects is the use of religion to achieve political goals. This contradicts the principle of pluralism on which the civil state is based.

In a civil state, power is exchanged within a framework of individual freedom of expression, candidacy and election

All its institutions are placed within the scope of accountability, and the executive, supervisory and judicial authorities are balanced in them, so that no authority overpowers another.

This state is characterized by the minority’s commitment to the outcome of free elections at all levels, but the elected ruling majority is also committed to the rights of minorities that are protected by the constitution, and to the commitment to alternate power and hold elections on time under the supervision of civil society. There is no objection to international monitoring to ensure the people’s confidence in the results.

Elections in the civil state are not only an election fund, but in a free climate for candidacy, and the early exclusion of any opposition as long as it exists within the framework of the constitution and the law.

The civil state and its institutions do not protect a ruler, but rather protect the people and the constitution.

Another young man said: What does Egypt need now?

I said: What we need in Egypt is the recognition of the local and global reality, without the armed forces entering the country into chaos that leads to the destruction of the country. Without the armed forces understanding the importance of civil society’s primacy and the growth of its economy, the country will not exist, and the balance that governs stability will collapse at some point.