Hossam Badrawi Official Website
free chat on facebook
This is a dialogue that took place on my Facebook page, and I saw the readers’ participation in it because of its benefit, which may be more general.
The first dialogue was about exploiting some platforms of extremism to talk to me about constructive freedom and inverting its concept.. and the second was about freedom of belief and citizenship.
In the first conversation I said:
Some state institutions believe that the philosophy of temporarily restricting freedoms will help their continuity and the stability of the civil state later!! It is a philosophy that contradicts the goal and has counterproductive results.
To achieve and create a destructive environment, they do not benefit from the margin of freedom for others, but rather push everyone to defend themselves instead of using their margin of freedom for the benefit of the country.
In fact, there are achievements that deserve to be commended, and there are failures in the areas of human building and freedoms that deserve modification and positive push to reform them. As for the attack on unemployed workers and the demolition of everything, no one benefits from it except those who seek to shake stability.
Construction is cumulative, gentlemen. Come, let us be brave and say what we want on the tongues of ourselves, and not deduct the words of others outside their scope, for freedom is indivisible.
I am part of a team that sees and praises without hypocrisy, and that sees and corrects at the same time. I have been and will continue to strive for the freedom of my country, appreciating the difficulty of its political management in light of the terrorism surrounding it and the challenges it has accumulated in its development.
I see the challenge and face it with knowledge and give my experience, knowing that the one who puts his hand in water is not like the one who puts his hand in the fire.
Greetings to everyone who is concerned with the development of my country inside or outside the authority, and I affirm my belief in my right to express my free opinion despite the noses of some short-sighted state institutions, and despite the stupidity of the destructive opposition that turns participation in presenting alternatives and expressing free opinion into shovels demolishing the whole system.
Everything in life is built cumulatively, and I may be the owner of an idea, but I could not implement it and someone comes after me to implement it, for he has my thanks and appreciation, and I have no right to criticize him. I also know that there are frequent thoughts, so if an idea comes to my mind, this does not prevent it from coming to the mind of others, so not every one of us believes that he has all the thoughts.
One of the followers commented: There is no problem, even if you sometimes object, Doctor. This is your right and the right of all citizens.
I said: The democratic model, even in its current application in the West, is subject to review as a result of the information and communication revolution that broke the barriers between the citizen and the decision maker, and provided an opportunity for direct communication between them, perhaps without the need for a mediator such as parties.
Traditional parties have lost their relevance as a tool for organizing, mobilizing voters, and fundraising because the candidate can do these things directly over the Internet.
There is also a decline in the importance of ideology as a framework for gathering citizens in a political or partisan framework. Perhaps the citizen’s greatest interest now is focused on the effectiveness of governance, i.e. the extent of achievement and response to the citizen’s demands.
On the other hand, achieving the greatest effectiveness of governance is linked to the most efficient reaching the seats of government through a system that allows this, and is also linked to the importance of having a system of control and accountability for the decision maker, and setting periods for governance to ensure innovation in thought and vitality of performance. In short, I see that the new generation of democracy should focus on the following elements:
The effectiveness of the ruling.
The efficiency of the referees.
– Oversight and accountability independent of the executive authority.
– An independent and effective justice system (the real revolution must take place here in this field).
An education and culture system that gives citizens the opportunity to choose the best.
We have to integrate what we dream of of a modern civil state with the real power on the ground, so that the country is not deprived of its human potential or its effective national institutions, a merger that gives freedom its place and respect by controlling the speedy justice that does not allow freedom to turn into chaos, nor the selective manipulation of the law.
Second dialogue:
Dialogue about religion and identity.
One of the female citizens raised a dialogue with me about my opinion on the separation of religion from politics, and that the application of the foundations of citizenship requires removing the religion field from the identity card, saying:
Doctor, what is wrong with the field of religion – I am with its existence – its existence is a description of a person’s identity like his nationality – let us leave the West to its concepts that we do not want to accept – the person is: Egyptian – Muslim or Christian – and we should not erase his religion to please neither the West, nor the Bahais, nor the non-religious or atheists;
I told her:
My answer to you will be in the form of a question, which I hope to answer. Is it a Baha’i, an atheist, or a gay man, and I am not one of them, and I do not agree with their orientations? Should, in your view, cancel their Egyptian nationality because of their differences in ideological or sexual orientation, despite our disagreement with it? Considering them citizens, or placing them in prisons?! .. Just a question.
And what about the Christian minority, if we think with the same logic, should they not be considered Egyptians!! Because they are different, and because we are a majority as Muslims.
Will we deal as a state according to the majority and expel the minority from the Egyptian citizenship? Religion is for God, my lady, and in order to worship your Lord as you see, but you do not have the right to impose your opinion on others.. It is the same logic with those who differ in biological and sexual orientations as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others. The philosophy is the same, do we believe in citizenship and respect difference or not?.. And remember that when our country was conquered by the first Muslims with an army of 25,000 Muslim soldiers, Egypt numbered 2 million Copts.
She said with emotion: Ok, and if a person dies with a neutral and unknown name and his family is not inferred, in what graves is he buried!! Therefore, the identity field is used to prove his identity and religious affiliation upon his death.
I said: My lady, every person has a birth certificate, in which everything is recorded about him. We are all human beings. We do not take our thoughts and beliefs to the grave, but rather our bodies that are eaten by worms during days and months. The body is nothing but a vessel for the soul and the soul, and the soul is a matter of God, no matter what
