I think that the question of younger/newer reformist-minded leaders is a good one. For example, certain aspects of Bouteflika's presidency have been praised, but now we see that he is contemplating changing the constitution to allow himself to run for a third term. In countries where authoritarianism has been the norm, how do even reform-minded leaders relinquish control to the legislative branch or to a successor, when that is not necessarily an expectation in the region?

This article is interesting and insightful. The seeming inevitability of Gamal’s “presidency” makes me wonder what his impact on the development of the political process will be. On one hand, he tries to position himself as a “modernizer” and, according to Dunne, is trying to present himself as a legitimate ruler seeking a constitutional mandate. He will obviously have to cater to the establishment, but would he introduce any democratic reforms or allow even marginal participation of the Muslim Brotherhood? Would the NDP function any differently under Gamal than under his father?

Michele Dunne's article on Egypt's NDP is well-written, direct, clear, and relevant. As a side note to begin...I was inclined to think that Ms. Dunne's thoughtful contribution to the discussion of attempts at democratic progress in Egypt was one that needs to be heard outside of the Beltway policy community. I would guess that people outside this community of thinkers, writers, and analysts would rarely hear about the internal struggles for democracy and the various shifts attempted and undertaken by figures within the country's institutions. It is unfortunate, because Egypt's progress (or perhaps lack thereof) toward genuine, grassroots democracy should be relevant to the American tax payer who in some way finances Egypt's status as #2 foreign aid recipient of the United States. With regard to the article, I find the seemingly imminent transfer of power from Hosni to Gamal as one of a dynasty and despite whatever 'constitutional mandate' is accorded to Gamal's ascendancy, it is the PEOPLE'S MANDATE that continues to be lacking and it is THAT mandate whose necessity must be constantly reinforced. With regard to: 'In addition, there have been persistent, though not widespread, opposition protests at the idea of a son inheriting power in a presidential republic.'...I wonder what someone like Ayman Nour's opinion would be of that comment. Dunne rightly uses the word 'appearance' to characterize Gamal's support. Dunne brings up an important point that seems to serve as a possible formula for Egypt's current 'coterie' to resist real democratic transformation: prosperity. I do not think it is wise to use what is essentially China's current formula of using economic prosperity as a way to curb the people's appetite for democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood must be talked about in any discussion of real grassroots democracy in Egypt. Despite the reservations of 'secular Egyptian commentators', no party or movement is perfect, but if the MB is legitimately elected in a legitimate election, then it should use the people's mandate to prove that it can deliver and in fact govern and provide a better alternative to the current political state of affairs. Suppressing the MB and hardening their position means the NDP will create more enemies and in fact ENHANCE the 'threat' of MB and give the MB more justification to use violent rather than non violent means of attaining their political goals. As Kennedy once said, 'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.' the NDP must take some responsibility for the political climate they have created that puts their survival as priority #1 yet continues to fan the flames of the people's frustration and contempt. When the NDP new guard supposedly promises 'greater openness, modernization, and improved governance', it is naive if it thinks these elements are sufficient in the long run for attaining a democratic Egypt. Of course, no institution is going to orchestrate mechanisms for its own destruction, which is why I remain very skeptical about the sincerity of the 'new guard's rhetoric. Finally, Dunne wrote that 'But when a foreign observer asked Gamal Mubarak during the party congress whether it would be the best testimony to the NDP’s reform drive if the party some day lost a parliamentary election, Mr. Mubarak demurred that Egypt was not prepared for such an outcome.' This response of Gamal's was the only comment we and Egyptians needed to hear to understand his true position. If he cannot fathom a peaceful changeover of power that does not involve the iron grip of his 'coterie', all of this talk about political reform is nonsense. How can we take Gamal seriously if the 'democratic reforms' he espouses will not permit 'such an outcome.' I guess Gamal cannot handle the audacity of democracy in Egypt. Great article, wishing to hear more about the opposition.

رغم انني اوافق fadili على ما جاء في التعليق، وأضيف أن الحزب الذي لايمتلك القاعدة الشعبية في بلده اي ليس له عدد معين من الأعضاء لا يعتبر حزبا، بمعنى أنه ليس من المعقول أن يكون نادى رياضي مثلا له من أعضاء الجمعية العمومية(البرلمان)أكثر من أعداد الجمعيات العمومية لمجموعة من الأحزاب. وجهة نظر فقط!

الأحزاب الموجودة داخل مصر بل والعالم العربي هي نتاج فكر الدولة نفسها. فإذا كان نتاج الدولة الديمقراطية وحرية الرأي وكل متعلقات حرية الفكر هنا تبنى الكوادر الحزبية ومع مرور الوقت والسنين
نجد الاحزاب ومن داخل الاحزاب من هو يميني او وسطي او يساري وهذا في حزب واحد ولكن كيف لنا ان نطالب باحزاب ولم نعد العدة لوقت سوف نبحث فيه عن احزاب وقيادة جديدة. ان عدم وجود احزاب حقيقيه تنافس بعضها البعض لمصلحة البلد في مصر بل في جميع الدول العربية يتحملها النظام القومي العربي الذي هدم فكرة حرية الرأي الآخر، لكن علينا ان نبدأ.

في اعتقادي فإن التعددية الحزبية التي هي إحدى الركائز المهممة التي تقوم عليها الديموقراطية وتداول السلطة، ولكن عدم فعالية هذه الاحزاب ومشاركتها في تقلد المهام داخل المجتمع يفرغ القاعدة اساسها ففي مصر الحزب الوطني، وهو حزب الأغلبية، الذي تنتمي إليه الحكومة وكل مؤسسات الدولة.
اما الاحزاب الاخرى فهي ذات شعبية متفاوتة ومجموعة لا تتوفر إلا على شعبية محدودة

تشكل انتخابات الرئاسة الاخيرة نقطة ارتكاز كبرى فى مشروع إصلاح النظام السياسى المصرى بطريقة سلمية تتسم بالتدرج وإتاحة مساحة اكبر لمشاركة الأحزاب والقوى السياسية المختلفة فى تحديد توجهات عملية الإصلاح السياسى.

ان سيطرة الحزب الوطني الديموقراطي لفترة زمنية طويلة على العمل السياسي بقيادة الرئيس حسني مبارك ، يتم من خلال احتكار السلطة والتركيز على سياسة امنية مشددة، وضع لن يستمر حتما الى الابد. بسبب الاصوات المنادية بالتغيير تتقوى يوماعن يوم. ونامل أن يكون تغييرا ايجابيا يسمح للاحزاب وكافة منظمات المجتمع المدني بالاطلاع بالدور المنوط بها واشراك كافة القوى السياسة في تسيير البلاد وفي عملية صنع القرارز.
وشكرا.