I very much welcome and commend President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s statement, in which he affirmed during his meeting with leaders of the media and press the importance of embracing the national opposition, considering it necessary and important, so long as it believes that the Egyptian state and its institutions represent a red line.
It is not required of the president to go into detail, but it is the duty of his aides and media apparatus.
This vision outwardly carries an openness to the other opinion, and it is a necessary step for any system that seeks to establish real stability based on participation, not exclusion.
However, by virtue of my political experience, I see that the headline alone is not enough unless it is precisely defined—otherwise it could turn into a tool for restricting freedoms rather than expanding them.
So what is meant by “national opposition”? And who has the right to draw the line between “acceptable” opposition and “unacceptable” opposition?
Here another dilemma arises: can we separate the concept of the national state from the ruler? Or will any criticism of the ruler or his government be immediately interpreted as unpatriotic opposition or a call for chaos? This conflation between the nation and the authority is one of the most dangerous threats to the democratic experience, because it transforms defending the ruler’s interests into a false defense of the homeland, and closes the door to reform and accountability.
Then there is the issue of red lines… Yes, any state must have limits that preserve social peace, but experience has taught us that these lines often turn into vast forbidden zones, drawn and expanded by those around the circles of power who seek to gain favor by tightening restrictions—thus becoming “more royalist than the king.” The result is that the red line extends until it suffocates the white space, leaving no room for free expression except in the shadows.
Is criticizing the involvement of religion in politics and education a threat to social peace?
Is reminding others of constitutional provisions that are not applied—and for which there are no announced policies to implement them, such as the separation of powers and the application of swift justice—a threat to national security?
Is criticizing the involvement of security agencies—even if well-intentioned—in parliamentary elections a threat to security?
Is questioning the enormous wealth that has appeared in the hands of individuals affiliated with or connected to governing bodies a red line?
And is questioning government spending without economic or social returns, or ensuring the peaceful transfer of power and not amending the constitution, a red line?
Certainly, accusations without evidence are unacceptable, but questioning—especially when there is no transparency of information—is a basic duty of the opposition.
True inclusion of the opposition is not achieved by slogans, but by setting a clear definition of what is national, away from political whims, and by affirming that the state is greater than any individual, and that opposing policies does not mean hostility to the nation. It is also achieved through legislative and institutional guarantees that allow everyone to express their opinions, within the framework of the law, without fear that their words will be turned into ready-made accusations.
The strength of the state lies not in silencing different voices, but in its ability to manage this diversity, and transform it into energy for construction, not fuel for destruction. And perhaps the first step toward this is freeing the concept of “national opposition” from ambiguity, so that the beautiful headline does not become a back door to more silence.
I believe the President genuinely wants openness and affirms his desire to listen to the opposition. Do not close the windows that have been opened and the doors that allow breathing, for that is what protects the country and ensures its safety.
