Many people did not notice that for the first time two opposition campaigns against the government s policies and projects achieved varying levels of success at the same time.
The campaign against the establishment of a large petrochemicals plant belonging to the Canadian Agrium Company in Damietta put the project at stake; and the campaign against selling gas to Israel has spurred the government to review the agreed prices in the controversial gas deal.
Despite the success of the two campaigns, they are an exception amid the frequent failure of opposition campaigns in general. Why do these two campaigns seem more influential than others? Are they the beginning of a change in the balance of power between the state and society, which allows the latter to exercise influence over the government s performance and make it accountable?
Although there is no indication that a change of this kind started to happen, the success of the petrochemicals and gas campaigns draws lessons that might lead to a change in the relationship between the state and the society in the future.
The first lesson is that there are issues that naturally have more potential than others to influence the policies related to them. These are issues where opinion is not polarized enough to make the state adamant on defending a policy, decision or project, especially at a time of unprecedented fragmentation within the political regime.
Society also has the ability to influence decisions that could harm major economic interests because they have the backing of other investors whose interests are at stake and are therefore willing to support the opposition.
This includes, for example, the tourism developers in Ras Al-Bar island, close to the controversial petrochemicals project.
The second lesson is the extent of the awareness of those spearheading the opposition campaigns about the various facets of the issues in dispute. There was a reasonable degree of awareness in the two campaigns which exposed the weaknesses of the government’s position in both cases.
Exporting gas to Israel not only inflames national sentiments, but also harms Egyptian economic interests because of the cheap price of the exported gas.
The campaign organizers succeeded in linking this to the government s decision to raise fuel prices last month, although there was no substantive link between both. The public wrath over the price hikes made the export of gas to Israel at a low price provocative for a wide sector of Egyptians, something which caused great embarrassment to the government.
In the case of the petrochemicals project, the campaign organizers succeeded in mobilizing the emotions of the people of Damietta by raising their fear of the hazardous health effects that could result from the project.
They also made use of the support of the tourist business in the area. More importantly, they persuaded sectors within the state to take their side.
The municipal council in Damietta governorate, for instance, rejected the project upon a green light from a state body. Furthermore the Ministry of Education issued orders not to allow any Agrium representatives to enter any school, as the company tried to gain people s confidence by promising jobs to technical secondary school graduates in the project.
The timing of the gas exports issue also played an important role, as the campaign against the deal coincided with the fuel and electricity blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip. This led to further embarrassment to the Egyptian government, which provides the enemy with gas while depriving its brothers of it. This explains why a similar campaign failed before when the agreement was signed in Cairo in July 2005.
Legal and judicial factors also helped make the two campaigns influential, when others had failed. They were both well-researched contrary to the case with many popular movements, which are usually improvised. The campaigners not only scrutinized the irregularities in the two contracts but also questioned the conditions under which they were signed.
In the case of the petrochemicals plant, campaigners exposed the fact the fact that the project was not presented to major government agencies for approval.
In the case of the gas deal, there was a decision taken by the oil minister delegating the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation to conclude a contract with Eastern Mediterranean Gas Company in order to sign a contract with the Israeli electricity company, although it was known that half of the delegated company was owned by an Israeli investor.
It thus seemed that an Egyptian sovereign body delegated another body to cooperate with Israel in setting the conditions for the export deal which raised strong suspicions.
Reviving a method used by Egyptians around a century in the face of the British occupation, campaigners collected powers of attorney to instigate a collective lawsuit demanding the annulment of the export deal. The lawsuit will be heard by the Administrative Judicial Court on June 24.
Dr Waheed Abdel Meguid is an expert at Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
