“We now embark on a new path towards Egypt’s future,” President Mubarak explained at the opening of the new parliamentary session last week, “one of broad horizons of economic progress and growth, social justice, and public involvement in the political process…The Egyptian people today have undergone a momentous transformation in many regards. Most importantly, they have taken a significant step towards better lives as a result of comprehensive and ambitious reform programs which have become the government’s priority.  

“Such programs were borne of wisdom, strategy and vision—a vision based on establishing the foundations of a modern civil state where centrism and moderation prevail…We have adhered to this strategic vision in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, reformulating the state’s role as a promoter of economic activity and provider for the countries neediest.

“The Egyptian people will realize all that it strives for. We know the way forward, and have come a long way. We will continue to travel this path with determination and certainty, strengthening the pillars of a strong and safe Egypt—a modern civil state. Fixing us to this path are our Constitution, laws, and institutions. We will not pay heed to skeptics, but rather, dream of a better future for which we strive and on behalf of which we act.”

The reason for my gratification at the president’s underlining of this notion as the defining feature of the Egyptian state is that it is a necessary message to those who attempted to change it. In fact this is the principle upon which the state was established in 1922, more than a century after its foundations were laid during the era of Muhammad Ali and his followers.

In truth, Egypt declared independence at the time not only from the powers that occupied it, but from the Ottoman Empire as well, which was then in its final throws of ruin and shortly thereafter collapsed entirely in 1924. Despite its longevity thus far, however, the concept of a modern civil state as it has applied to Egypt for nearly two centuries continues to encounter forces which attempt to dismantle its foundations and corrupt its principles. Consequently, it behooves us to reexamine the features that characterize the modern civil state upon which such principles are founded.

First, a modern civil state seeks not only to promote economic growth and internal stability, it also strives to develop programs of reform that remedy problems and uproot their causes in accordance with changes and developments taking place in the world.

Second, The primary objective of the civil state is to provide a framework accommodating all factions within it from which none can be excluded or deprived of their rights on the basis of color, race or gender. The state protects the rights and freedom of all. It functions in accordance with the principle of citizenship, which governs the actions of all citizens, and simultaneously adapts itself and its actions towards its citizenry. A civil state cannot exist without its citizens, and there can be no citizenship without a state based on rule of law, justice, democracy and equality for all.

Third, a civil state has the capacity to promote development as well as adapt to the changes in both internal and external arenas. A state is capable of promoting internal concord through which it can ensure security and stability for its citizens.

Fourth, its primary objective is reform and development, rather than stagnation and upheaval often sought by reactionary or radical movements, which, as experience shows, can lead to corruption, war, and even famine. Numerous studies have begun to reveal the effects of such movements on the countries in which they are found. A study prepared by a group of European and African experts and published by the “Frontier Economics” consultancy group sets the cost of the civil war in Sudan, for example, at approximately $100 billion.  Furthermore, the costs of the war are not limited to Sudan, but extend to neighboring countries as well. According to the study, the war may potentially drain 34 percent of the GDP of neighboring countries over the next decade.  Additionally, a number of these countries may lose more than one million dollars annually as a result of other factors relating to the war, including loss of investment to more stable regions, an increase in military expenditures and refugee crises.

According to another report issued by the Strategic Foresight group entitled The Cost of Conflict in the Middle East, economic losses due to ongoing warfare in the region since 1991 have reached a staggering $12 trillion, ranking the Middle East as the most heavily armed area worldwide in terms of expenditures compared to GDP percentages, loss of life, and other security-related losses. According to the report, 6 percent on average of the GDP in the Middle East was allocated to military spending in recent years.

There are naturally exceptions to the rule in countries such as Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, where religious political parties are better able to manage problems faced with other parties by adopting tolerant policies in accord with domestic realities. Such parties employ religion as a moral compass while supporting steps towards reform and progress and advancements in science technology, rather than imposing restrictions on the state, denying it its place within the world community, and representing an obstacle to foreign investment and participation in global trade.

With only a relatively short history, the modern civil state is inextricably linked to the concept of the social contract, where individuals concur on the configuration of the political, economic structure and particular system that governs them. Egypt is considered the first Arab nation to have adopted the concept of the civil state. It did so two centuries ago during the era of Muhammad Ali, and ultimately established the idea of citizenship and the relationship between citizens on the basis of an agreed upon social contract. This social mechanism matured and developed through the 1919 revolution, but later encountered obstacles on the backdrop of the emergence of religious movements. The problems encountered at the time were not necessarily related to the nature of the ruling regime, but rather to the parameters which by which it governed, most notably, the relationship between the state’s citizens.

It is important to remember that the principle of citizenship in Egypt does not in any way imply an aversion to religiosity, which rests securely within the public domain. Instead, it refrains from religious analysis and places special emphasis on cultural relations and the process of building a civil state for all its citizens. Herein lies the distinctive harmony of the Egyptian experience, situated between the Turkish model of adaptation to external developments, and that of Saudi Arabia, for which the Quran constitutes the ultimate platform upon which the state stands.