Mohammed Al Baali-Cairo
Almost a year has passed since the Egyptian government banned the Islamic Labor party and closed its newspaper, Ashaab.
Many developments took place during this year, including the death of the secretary general of the party, Adel Hussein, and the arrival of a successor. Conferences, sit-ins and hunger strikes failed to persuade the government to permit the party to operate and reopen its newspaper.
The controversy surrounding the Islamic Labor Party raises many questions, which Albawaba.com addressed to the new secretary general and nephew of the former party secretary general, Magdi Hussein.
Hussein told Albawaba.com that the Egyptian government had proposed a settlement at the beginning, demanding control of the party as a whole and changes to its leadership, which was legally elected at the seventh party conference.
Ashaab’s editor in chief was changed accordingly, but because the matter appeared to be a coup rather than a settlement, it was rejected by the party’s executive committee.
The government has not proposed anything since, said Hussein, because it has been seeking new leaders for the party whose loyalties lie with the government.
For the party’s part, according to Hussein, “we have continued resisting, and consider the government’s formula as a cancellation of the multi-party system and abolishment of our party, keeping its name only.”
He called the government proposal to solve the problem a way of ruining and dominating Egypt’s political life.
Following are excerpts from Albawaba.com’s interview with Hussein:
Q: After the death of the hawkish Adel Hussein, a solution for the problem appeared to be more likely, since he used to take a hard line in confrontations with the Egyptian government.
But since your election as party secretary general, speculation regarding easy negotiations with the solemn Magdi Hussein have been renewed, since negotiations would be easier with you than with your late uncle. What are your comments on this?
A: The de facto situation provides the best comment. The Egyptian government did not consider my election as a way of easing the tension, but looked at it as a type of challenge, and a reiteration that the party would follow in the footsteps of Adel Hussein.
The government believes that Adel Hussein was not holding an individual attitude, and it is the party as a whole that was holding these attitudes, whether suggested by the secretary general or someone else.
The government was incensed by the institution as a whole and its revolutionary and Islamic policies.
Q: Other stories say that the government’s hardline attitude towards the Labor Party was due to its close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, a factor which underlay the ban. What are your comments on that?
A: The main reason for the government’s hard line against us is the fact that the regime is in real trouble and impatient with the opposition in general. Its attitude towards our party stems from our insistence on independence. Our relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood is a relationship of a political coalition, and cooperation between two organizations and coalitions is part of the party’s policy inwich we will allow no one to interfere. The Muslim Brotherhood is an existing power that has representatives in the People’s Council, in addition to the fact that they are Egyptian citizens whom we deal with.
I do not see any reason why our relationship with them should be a justification for the government to have a hardline attitude. I reiterate that our insistence on independence is the reason for the government’s attitude.
The government has relations with the opposition parties and sees that the Labor Party as the most difficult to infiltrate. The government wants a nominal multi-party system while we want a real one. We are aware that this needs more sacrifice and efforts. The opposition should seek its rights by struggle, not by begging; by capturing, not by imploring.
Q: In addition to your party position, you are a member of the Egyptian Press Association. We have seen sit-ins, strikes and other problems created by the Egyptian journalists. What is going on at the association?
A: We at the press association are in a difficult situation. Press freedom in Egypt is in the same boat, and has reached its worst point since 1976 despite the multi-party system in Egypt.
Everything that Egyptian journalists achieved in their struggle against Law No. 93 for 1995 has been withdrawn gradually. The arrest of journalists has become a routine thing, in addition to fines, which are beyond their capabilities.
The closure of newspapers has also become very frequent, making Egypt one of the worst 10 countries in the world in terms of attacking press freedom.
We stand now at a turning point, as the press is not owned by journalists alone. It is more important than the parliament in democratic countries. The parliament in Egypt has not forced one minister to step down, but the press has. The attack on the press and journalists at present indicates that the country is heading towards a dark tunnel, as the regime, after 25 years of the multi-party system, has started to attack the democratic margin and transform it into nothing.
Q: What do you propose, as an association member, for confronting such a situation?
A: In reality, I make every effort to enhance the activities of the freedoms committee, in order to unite all the forces advocating for press freedom. This is because there is no value for the profession without freedom and journalists’ dignity.
Therefore, I will make every effort to revive the association’s work, which defends the freedom of journalists and writers in general. It is a battle of life and death, and despite its difficulty, I can see that our victory is certain. Oppression has no future and the Internet is the best evidence. But I would like to reiterate that the press battle is beyond the capability of the freedoms committee, because it requires the cooperation of all forces, similar to what happened in the battle for the cancellation of Law No. 93.
Q: What is the reliability of news reports regarding your nomination for the press association chief elections next June?
A: A number of colleagues proposed the idea to me, and I am still thinking about it. My reluctance to run in the elections in not due to fear, but because I seek to protect the interests of the public. Moreover, I want the election battle to be successful and not merely a heated race. This is due to the fact that because of the association’s structure, namely the domination of the editors in chief and the interference by the government through election bribes, put obstacles in the way of the elections.
I am currently studying, along with a large number of journalists, the possibility of running in the elections, but so far I haven’t made a decision.
In general, there are problems which every candidate should put solutions for on his agenda. The first of these is the dependence of the association on the government, since the press association is the only one that gets direct financing from the government. The money is spent on matters that do not contribute to raising the standard of the journalists, such as the construction of a giant building as a new headquarters for the association. The government also employs about two thirds of the journalists who work for the national organizations (semi-governmental such as Al Akhbar and Al Ahram). The government is the association’s foe at the same time as it violates press freedom.
The second problem is the resumption of putting journalists in jail, and the third is the closure of newspapers. The fourth problem is the government’s contempt for the journalist’s dignity, in addition to the various problems he faces with his management and the lack of law enforcement at the press corporations.
The fifth problem is the collapse of professional performance, and the mixing of editorial and advertisement. The profession and the press as a whole face a crisis, and consequently the association is in a really tough spot.
Q: Don’t you see that the presence of (Al Ahram daily’s managing director) Ibrahim Nafe’ as the association chief will contribute to solving these problems, particularly the last four ones, through his strong connections with the regime?
A. On the contrary. These problems have been aggravated because of him.
The past years, during which [Nafe’] served as the association chief, were the worst years for the press in Egypt. We can’t accept that the association chief be pro-government. The chief should not assume the post of a managing director, or even a board member in any other corporation, in addition to his position.
The board of directors is the agency that takes action against the journalist, and the association is the organization that protects him, so how did it come to be that the foe and the judge are the same?
When I joined the association as a member, I delegated my authorities as a board member of Al Shaab newspaper to the deputy editor in chief. I would like to reiterate for the second time that the association should be the representative of the employees. The association law should state that managing directors should not be accepted as association members. Ibrahim Nafe’ is the head of one third of Egypt’s journalists (about 33 percent of Egypt’s journalists work for Al Ahram), so how can he be their foe and judge them at the same time?
If Ibrahim Nafe’ wins the elections, this means that we will continue to walk in the dark tunnel, and his presence at the top of the association is a mistake. He should not be reelected unless he leads a campaign for extraordinary changes, such as the passage of a new law prohibiting the arrest of journalists.
