Some political opposition members and human-rights activists resort to withdrawal whenever a political situation in fact calls for reasoned dialogue.
Such individuals firmly insist on their right to withdraw while at the same time demanding that the state show restraint. At the same time, other opposition figures employ rational democratic tools in the political engagements that are offered to them, using these to hone their negotiation and dialogue skills.
Today, some human rights advocates have also announced their withdrawal from participating in the National Dialogue sessions in response to the judicial ruling against activist Patrick George. Their withdrawal appears to be part of a political stance against a judicial verdict.
As a result, negativity can easily prevail instead of positive political action and the exerting of pressure on political events rather than withdrawing from them. We in the Dialogue Bloc have always been proponents of positivity and engagement and the rejection of extremism and withdrawal.
The judiciary can all too easily be placed in the position of handling paperwork rather than engaging in political compromises in the wake of a decision to withdraw by political actors. Paperwork triumphs over compromises.
Moreover, blurring the line between political action and criminal referral in cases related to freedom of speech is disheartening. But it does not justify withdrawing from the negotiating table or severing communication with the state, and neither does it warrant donning the cloak of Caesar and presenting oneself as a warrior in a battle.
The state has opened the door to a National Dialogue, a first in the history of Egypt, and it has offered unprecedented freedom under its auspices. President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi has responded positively to several of the outcomes agreed upon by all the parties involved in the dialogue, such as acceding to judicial oversight, reconsidering the guardianship laws, and reviewing the prosecutorial system and the freedom of information law.
All these steps were taken before the conclusion of the relevant dialogue sessions and the dispersal of the participants, and they were taken in addition to the releases of some individuals detained after arrests and judicial rulings.
I must emphasise that I am against imprisoning anyone for their opinions, no matter how different they might be from mine. But I also oppose opposition figures attacking the state whenever disagreements arise. Does a withdrawal from the dialogue help to resolve issues?
Following the George verdict, the Dialogue Bloc immediately called upon the president to use his constitutional powers to pardon him and all prisoners of conscience in Egypt. We also urged the Attorney General to lift the prolonged pretrial detention of political activists without valid reasons.
We consistently emphasise the need to limit pretrial detention to six months at most, and we strongly discourage any attempts to prosecute activists on unrelated charges after two years of pretrial detention. This is our permanent political stance on this matter.
The state promptly acted and issued a presidential pardon just 24 hours after the Patrick George ruling. George had previously spent 18 months in pretrial detention. The pardon also extended to our bloc’s president, Mohamed Al-Baker, and to two other individuals who were unjustly detained due to their political opinions and activism.
Urging the president to exercise his powers to pardon prisoners of conscience is not a fault. His response is not a sign of concession either, but is rather a manifestation of positive action in favour of the nation, its citizens, and its political processes.
Engaging in a rational dialogue through political negotiation and utilising the National Dialogue platform to express diverse views, cooperate in resolving issues, and propose alternatives are all far more constructive than withdrawal or insisting on extremist measures.
Let us strive for positivity in our political engagements rather than resort to competition among ourselves. Effecting change and improving our situation is more beneficial than merely blaming it on others and going over its details.
Withdrawal may convey a message of objection, but it is proactive interaction that brings about real change and leaves a lasting impact, opening doors for individuals who would otherwise remain bound by difficult circumstances. In this way, they can breathe fresh air and gradually widen their horizons until a beam of light turns into a radiant sun.
We have seen more than our fair share of an opposition that curses the darkness but fails to light a candle. It fails to understand that victory in the battle for freedom comes through gradual steps, not a single decisive blow. It also fails to understand the reasons behind the state’s decisions, leaving them unable to unravel supposed puzzles.
The political system in Egypt is shifting from a closed political arena to a more open one, and we must encourage it and push for further political and economic reforms. We need to build bridges of trust, dispel doubts and suspicions, and find a balance as political actors.
The state should also loosen its political muscles, allowing for a more open and a brighter future for us and our children.
The writer is the head of Egypt’s Dialogue Bloc.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 27 July, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: