Photography: Hayder Kandil
Design: Aya Saber
Video editing: Khaled Abdallah
Khaled El-Balshy to Zawia3
- The 2018 laws regulating the press squandered the value of the journalist and the syndicate
- There is an increase in the allowance based on negotiations I conducted as head of the Journalists Syndicate, not as a candidate
- The economic situation of journalists cannot be exploited in electoral programmes
- The press is in crisis because of the bad legal conditions
- The state must take part in supporting the press so that it can overcome its economic crisis.
- My first term as head was a preparatory term, and we opened all the files in parallel.
- The membership registration crisis in the syndicate is a long legacy that we are working to resolve, and freedom of publication is one of the solutions.
- The rehabilitation of released journalists is one of the important files we worked on
His success in the race for the post of head of the Journalists Syndicate, after failing to win a board seat over successive terms, came as a surprise to everyone, and to him personally, yet he has offered a unique experience in syndicate work over two years, in which he engaged with many files, the most important of which were the imprisonment of journalists and the laws regulating it, as well as syndicate services.
In his interview with Zawia3, Khaled El-Balshy presents his record on the files he worked on during his first term, most importantly the file of releasing imprisoned journalists and rehabilitating them, as well as his moves on the file of raising the allowance in his capacity as head of the Journalists Syndicate and not as a candidate for the post of head, and he explains his vision of political work inside the syndicate and of the Journalists Syndicate steps.
How do you see the difference between the current elections and the previous ones?
Elections are a competition in all cases; they are a competition over achieving electoral programmes and achieving the demands of the General Assembly, and that is the general rule for them. But last time I was presenting myself to the General Assembly and I received anxious votes; now I am presenting myself with the experience of the past two years behind me, subject to evaluation and monitoring. In the previous elections, the two candidates for the post of head had no previous experience in the post of head, but in this term the competition is between a current head and a former one, and the competition is between two electoral experiences, both of them strong as well, and in my estimation this is the difference between the two terms. But in the end, returning to the General Assembly is the basis, because supreme authority belongs to it, and the General Assembly’s view will remain within the framework of what has been achieved and what has failed.
What are the files you have decided to give greater attention to in the coming term if you win?
The previous term was like a preparatory term, in which we had to open all the files in parallel, among them rehabilitating the syndicate so that it becomes a home for journalists, and I believe that has been done completely, and restoring the syndicate as an actor in political life and in syndicate life in Egypt, and I also believe this has been done. Among the files that were also opened were the file of imprisonment, the file of developing the profession, developing the syndicate, and the file of syndicate services. All these files are open, and they are always priority files, because we cannot talk about a profession without freedom, without reforming its conditions and achieving freedom of movement for journalists in the street, and without talking about developing the economic conditions of journalists, which are linked to freedom, because all the files lead into one another. Nor can we talk about the profession without a strong syndicate, and I think it has regained its role in this society as a truly influential force in society. Among the files I opened in the previous term were service projects such as the residential city, and there are other projects and files inside the syndicate that I am working to complete, but the profession and its freedoms and the economic conditions of journalists remain the basis, and the message of the General Conference and the mandate that the General Conference gave to any candidate remain the programme that we must all work on.
How do you see the crisis of the press in Egypt now?
The press has been in crisis for many years, and I think part of its crisis is the legal situation we suffer from, the laws that govern this profession, and the decline in performance for a long period in the press and the syndicate. That is why I think there is a task that has become necessary, which is reorganising the field that governs the press, and this is what we engaged with in the last year, whether in new laws such as the Criminal Procedure Law, on which we had observations that we engaged with, or the Press and Media Regulation Law, which has clear flaws, and the laws issued in 2018, which, unfortunately, despite the strong warnings about the law, the syndicate and its board at the time came out to announce were the best laws in the history of the press, and they were even compared with the Law 93 crisis on the grounds that the syndicate had achieved an astonishing achievement. But for me it is something strange, even though the observations were clear and we are paying the price for them.
Now we have alternatives to these laws and we have to apply them in one way or another; we have clear texts to talk about. The strange thing is that all parties are now talking about restoring the prestige of the syndicate membership card, which was squandered by the law itself, the law that prevented the journalist from covering or filming in the street by virtue of the card, and which opened the door to blocking websites on the grounds that they are a matter of national security, even though national security means protecting this profession and defending it, protecting those who earn their living inside this profession and protecting their freedoms, and this is important. The profession must be freed from restrictions, the most important of which are the restrictions on working in the street. The syndicate board has tried to take real steps on this file, but there are clear duties before us: we have important steps ahead at the level of professional capacity to express people’s concerns, the profession’s capacity to address all parties and not a single party, and the profession’s capacity to reflect society, so that society returns to taking an interest in it again. In the past two years, society’s view of the syndicate as a voice for it was restored; what remains is for it to regain its view of the profession itself as a voice for it, because this pays off for us economically: the citizen returns to buying the content we offer, and the press returns strong and influential, which is reflected on journalists in services and pay.
There is constant talk about the allowance: is there an increase in the allowance or not? And how do you see its use in the current elections?
The allowance card always comes out in elections, and I believe that the General Assembly has realised over many years that the allowance comes to everyone, because it comes from the strength of the General Assembly. The paradox is that whoever uses the allowance card uses it while outside the head’s seat, even though the allowance increased twice during the previous term. What I affirm is that the syndicate did not stop seeking to increase the allowance during the past two years, and the syndicate received clear letters from the government that an increase had been approved on the basis of the communication that took place, whether in meetings, in letters or in the negotiations that took place under a directive I was tasked with, and a directive that came from the Presidency of the Republic and from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Minister of Finance to study the full demands raised by the syndicate. These are official letters we have, so I do not understand how this card is being used in the elections. I was keen to keep the allowance card out of the elections, because it is not right for me to exploit people’s need and the economic situation as part of my electoral programme, because the truth is that I am the one currently in the head’s seat, and I am the one who addressed the government as head of the Journalists Syndicate and not as a card to bargain with in the elections. I was keen all the time that the allowance be separated from the elections, because this is money that comes from the government and not from my pocket or anyone’s pocket.
What I know for certain, and what was published and then withheld, is that the decision was issued, or, I mean, this is what was published and withheld, and this is what was submitted. What matters is that I am almost certain the increase is coming, because it is the right of the General Assembly, and at rates very close to the rates we requested, and this is a settled matter for me. I reaffirm that it should not be a weapon in the electoral battle; had we wanted it to be a weapon, I would have come out from the very first moment, released the correspondence and the details of what happened in it, and used it. There were statements made in this regard that were banned and withheld, in a story that can be talked about later.
There are accusations against the syndicate law that it is old and needs amending; why has it not been put forward for amendment so far among the projects that have been worked on legislatively?
We have talked about the laws governing the media, but as for the syndicate law, we say clearly that we want specific amendments to specific texts, to be submitted first to a General Assembly with a full quorum for approval, because we are keen for the journalistic community to be present in amending it, because what happened in the past period at the level of a number of laws, such as the Criminal Procedure Law or the Medical Liability Law, which is still being negotiated, and also what happened previously with the press laws, sent feelings of concern among a wide sector that must be taken into account in one way or another. That is why the amendment must pass through the gateway of the General Assembly and shelter behind the strength of the General Assembly, and no amendment should happen except through it and not through any other party, especially since most of its texts protect the press. There are some texts that need developing, such as membership registration and perhaps elections, as well as the texts on pensioners and the recommendations that came out of the General Conference, and steps have been taken in one way or another. But we still have other important laws that must be dealt with, such as the laws regulating journalists’ work in the street, and this, by the way, is the most dangerous, which does not mean that the other laws are not a priority. But also the journalist’s inability to cover or film in the street because he is a journalist except with permission, because this means squandering the value of the syndicate, the value of the press and the value of the syndicate membership card: that you need permission to cover an incident. Does the journalist know that the incident will happen so that he can obtain permission? This is the situation that the newly introduced law created for journalists, and that the judicial police officer has wide powers is a great danger to the profession: that a citizen can film with his phone, but a journalist cannot except with a licence because he carries a camera. This is among what the current laws created, in addition to other texts relating to the national press institutions. All of this must be one of the main priorities because it limits our ability to work, and this does not negate our need, too, to meet and agree through a General Assembly on amending all the laws.
Speaking of membership registration, there is a double crisis in this file: the online journalists and the deferred applicants who say they are eligible and were prevented from joining the syndicate, and, on the other side, the buying of memberships. How will you deal with this file?
Whoever says about this file that we do not have a crisis is not being fair, but how can it be dealt with? This file needs great effort because it is part of a long legacy of the state of the press in general, because ownership of the press became concentrated in the national newspapers, which closed the door to appointments a long time ago, and the syndicate fought a long battle to open the door to appointment through the temporary workers, even though some considered it an impossible task, and it has not been implemented so far. The second part is concentrated in United Media Services, while the remaining part of the publications, a small part outside the two large blocs, is what submits applicants for membership, and the result is that many competent journalists resorted to this space, which created a state of trade that we suffer from and are fighting by amending the rules, and this is an important part. But freedom of publication has become a very pressing necessity in order to work on dismantling the concentration of ownership and bringing existing publications back to life so that they appoint journalists under specific controls, because this is an important part of the general climate. What remains is to talk about the internal Registration Committee, in which big steps have taken place, and also big objections. One of these steps is that training should be an essential part of the registration process, through 6 real courses ending with registration exams. We wanted this to be more institutional, through the participation of General Assembly members or specialists in the Registration Committee, and this is what happened in the photography and proofreading branches and others, followed by the exams. The Registration Committee has also begun recording its observations in official papers and not merely as a passing opinion. We have important steps, but perhaps we fell into a big mistake, which is fragmentation, and so that we do not lie to one another: when the committee was formed we wanted its composition to be diverse, so that this diversity and difference would be one of the tools for strengthening the committee, but instead it became an obstacle, and we found ourselves forced to negotiate between colleagues, and this is difficult. That is why the committee is attacked all the time; one part considers the procedures to be more difficulty in joining the syndicate. We inherited a situation in which the syndicate committee was a gateway for anyone who passed through, and the committee that followed came to impose harsh rules for joining, and at the same time there is a public that wants to join the syndicate, and a public that attacks the newspapers that allow appointment for trading in membership, and when complaints are investigated and the situation of newspapers is reviewed the period drags on, which creates the complaint. This is part of the crisis, and perhaps the inharmonious composition increased the registration crisis.
We have to admit that there is a crisis, and correcting it comes through the amendment relating to the entry of representatives of the General Assembly into the evaluation and not into the final committee, and this is a great necessity; perhaps this will stop some details. For example, one of the major crises concerned a colleague who was rejected by the assisting committee in the branch in which he applied, and it said that he needed some development. Perhaps the committee lost the spirit of the law here, but in the end the decision came out with a negative evaluation of his performance, and the syndicate and the Registration Committee bore this decision even though it was the decision of the specialists from the General Assembly. There are crises related to some newspapers from the inside, relating to the legal status of the newspapers and the way they regularise their status or develop it, and there is a big crisis relating to appeal registration, or the grievances in which decisions were issued without the committee members being present, and the syndicate entered into long negotiations and submitted complaints to the Ministry of Justice about what happened, which are now being investigated, and we are trying to create different paths for colleagues through controls from inside the syndicate.
And the crisis of the online journalists, what happened with it?
This crisis is linked to the crisis of the press itself. We did not try to set rules relating to online journalism; rather, we talked about affiliate membership. Because the affiliate membership roll was not activated, we have had a door for accepting a number of affiliates every year through the Grievances Committee, and there is a large sector of those working in the profession whom the syndicate does not cover, even though we have always been keen that all journalists, syndicate members and non-members, be protected, especially in cases of journalists’ imprisonment, and in all cases. For example, in the crisis of the temporary workers there were syndicate members and non-members, and we defended everyone’s right. What we wanted to do was to extend the umbrella of syndicate protection to everyone working in the profession, under rules set by the General Assembly, but some tried to exploit this matter to drag us into a quarrel, while we wanted the syndicate to remain a protector of this profession and able to extend protection to everyone, because this also protects us from intruders, especially since we have a law that recognises other forms of journalism, and journalists who have paid a long price for years inside the national institutions or other institutions, and were appointed but are outside syndicate protection, even if only partially.
You spoke about blocking under the law, but there is also blocking that takes place outside the scope of the law, as happened with the Zawia3 website. How do you see the solution to this crisis?
This is one of the crises that we raise at all times, and in my estimation the syndicate’s view has developed from claiming that it is part of national security, and defending it, to demanding the development of the rules of the law we currently live under, which gave judicial police officers the power to block. The demands were clear in the National Dialogue and on every occasion that the state of the law must be reviewed and the texts governing it changed substantially. We also entered into negotiations concerning the blocking of some websites, which were partly resolved: the block was lifted from some of them and continued for others. Another aspect remains, which is if a complaint comes from a website and this website has sought to regularise its status to obtain a licence from the one who blocked it, because it does not exist because it is illegal: this talk needs reconsideration and needs to move outside the framework of the judicial police officer. We are always against confiscation, but as a result of many rules we are forced to argue that blocking or confiscation should only be issued by a judicial decision, not by the will of the authority represented by the judicial police officer, who is an employee. This is an important part that we insist on raising. It can be said that we received 9 complaints during the past year: some of them were resolved, some were resolved and then the block returned again, and we went back to negotiating over them again, and in some of them the block continued. There must be a complete reconsideration, of the texts governing blocking, and of the regime’s or the state’s view of press freedom itself, and that it is part of protecting national security and not the opposite. Press freedom reveals crises and does not cause them to explode, and when it reveals them it shines a light and rings alarm bells so that action is taken to resolve them. That is why we must shelter behind press freedom, and the syndicate that speaks for journalists must be the bearer of this message in all official meetings and in all negotiations, and on every occasion, in official and unofficial forums, we talk about press freedom, the freedom of colleagues and also the economic conditions of journalists.
What happened in the file of imprisoned journalists?
In the file of imprisoned colleagues, during the first year of my term as head we made big strides: 11 colleagues were released, in addition to the intervention to release a female colleague in Saudi Arabia whom no one knew was imprisoned, and there were crises in which we intervened directly and resolved them directly for more than 15 colleagues, and they were resolved immediately. We had reached something like an agreement that there would be only an exit gate from prison, and the revolving door through which new colleagues enter detention was closed, but suddenly, two months after the start of the second year, the revolving door returned again and a number of colleagues were arrested. We entered into negotiations over that, it took a long time and the situation froze, but it can be said that during the past two years the syndicate was able to secure the release of 11 colleagues; there is a female colleague who, unfortunately, was only released after completing her sentence despite the demand for her release; also the release of a female colleague who was detained in Saudi Arabia; and the release of 15 colleagues who were held for short periods, a day or two, on the basis of the syndicate’s interventions. We hope to return once again to the second path, which is a single door for exit and not the revolving door, to resolve this crisis radically. The syndicate did not deal with the issue of journalists’ imprisonment only through securing their release, but also through rehabilitation. We sought rehabilitation, whether through appointing colleagues (of course there are colleagues we could not appoint, because this matter depends on the will of the institutions that do the appointing), but 6 colleagues were appointed in cooperation with the committee for the integration of detainees and a number of fellow journalists who were part of this committee. We were able to reach another agreement to rehabilitate some colleagues or support them to get through this stage by providing financial support from the state, or from a state body, or from one of the press companies that supported colleagues in one way or another. An amount was allocated for psychological support for fellow journalists, and last year we obtained EGP 1 million and 200,000, which was used for rehabilitation, in addition to helping imprisoned colleagues through legal attendance or hosting their families to hold syndicate events defending their freedoms, and drawing up a complete list of colleagues that we submitted to all the authorities for their release, as well as supporting them financially by a decision of the General Assembly: we started by paying EGP 2,000 a month and reached an amount of EGP 6,000, which is of course not enough, but it is part of the emergency response. The syndicate thus moved from saying that we have no prisoners, or that they are criminal prisoners, to a situation in which we have a list of 24 colleagues whose release we demand from all the authorities, which the various authorities recognise, and it is broadcast on official channels that the head of the Journalists Syndicate demanded the release of imprisoned journalists. These are important steps and in my estimation they will be completed, and there are signs of their completion in the rehabilitation of colleagues, the release of some of them, the return of some of them to their jobs, the improvement of the conditions of some imprisoned colleagues and the resumption of visits to them. All that remains is the return of negotiations to close this file completely, and to empty the prisons not only of journalists but of prisoners of opinion in general.
There are accusations that you have politicised the syndicate or brought your political current into the syndicate. How do you respond to this accusation?
My response is for the General Assembly to evaluate the past two years: there are some who see me as lax, and others who see that the syndicate has returned to its role. A distinction must be made between politicisation and partisanship. Under the syndicate’s law, we practise political work all the time; journalism is political work in the first place, publishing about people’s conditions is political work, defending freedoms is political work, but it is important that this does not turn into partisanship, so we take off our party robes at the syndicate’s door. Simply by working in a particular space we are doing political work, and the Journalists Syndicate is the only syndicate whose founding law permits political work. Our role on the Palestinian cause was political work; it supported the cause and, in my estimation, presented a different image of the country and was an expression of this country, and was supportive even of the state’s point of view on the issue of displacement, for example, and we were able to bring the syndicates together on this position, and this is a restoration of the syndicate’s role. What happened is that as a board we waded into all the problems in a spirit open to everyone, as a syndicate open to everyone, and keen that it remain a syndicate for everyone, and I believe that the success of any head is to be a representative of all journalists and not of a particular group. In every battle we were present as representatives of all journalists, and the General Conference was a model of that, because we were keen that it represent all parties, whether in attendance or in the committees, to the point that all parties attacked me: those who support me attacked me because of the presence of the old faces, and the other side attacked me because of the representation of the new faces, and all parties were represented, in addition to hosting some figures from outside the board so that there would be no influence on the elections. For the syndicate’s award we hosted an advisory committee of former heads of the syndicate and senior journalists so that it would represent everyone, and for the conference we entrusted a board of trustees. We did not exclude 4 board members from the committees as happened before, and everyone worked in their committees. So I do not know where the control of my political current over the syndicate came from, if everyone was represented.
Speaking of politics… the syndicate steps have a special symbolism and have caused major crises. How do you see that?
The syndicate steps have great symbolism, and part of their symbolism is the symbolism of the press itself: when people turn to the syndicate steps, they are turning to the press, and the constant chant is “Where is the press?”. People are always looking for the press to express their concerns, and the steps of the staircase, in my estimation, are part of the image of this syndicate and are not a danger to anyone; on the contrary, the problem is with those whose view of the space of freedom narrows at the steps of the staircase. This does not mean overusing this power. If we evaluate the past two years, we discover that the syndicate steps were an honourable image of Egypt on the issue of the Palestinian cause, and the first move took place there after the Baptist Hospital, even if some departure from the norm occurred, because of which we entered into negotiations, and the state understood that. When a number of demonstrators were arrested, most of whom were not journalists, we intervened and they were released a day or two later, because the state understands the importance of the role of the syndicate steps, which were an important part of the battle over displacement: the image of the syndicate as part of the battle. This is part of the idea of the press in general when it expresses people’s concerns, and I believe that the symbolism of the syndicate steps must be preserved, while at the same time not squandering it or overusing it, and balancing freedom with the interests of colleagues.
The syndicate engaged with the Criminal Procedure Law… why?
Because it is part of the working climate. First, the Criminal Procedure Law contained texts relating directly to the press, but it was not possible for us to confine ourselves to the texts relating to the press, because this law is the constitution of justice, and we saw that regulating the procedures of justice is part of the climate in which the press works. If we lack precise procedures for justice, or if people do not feel justice, the press will lose, because people turn to journalists and talk to them, and if this causes them to pay a price, it will affect the press in one way or another. There is no free press without a free climate, or without a political climate in which people feel satisfied or which is able to provide freedom of movement for everyone, so you cannot narrow press freedom down to a text concerning press freedom alone. It is of no use for the journalist to enjoy freedom while his source suffers, and other parties such as political parties cannot move, or the general climate itself is one in which the press suffers from restrictions, because the journalist will then not be able to express people’s concerns, because people themselves are afraid to express themselves. That is why our role was to engage with all of that, and this is the role of a press that works to defend people’s freedoms and their rights, and a constitution of justice worthy of us all, and the development of the law in defence of the existence of a social dialogue on laws that are part of the public dialogue, of which the press is a part. The syndicate is a platform for social dialogue, and if we do not hold a dialogue on all these issues we lose our existence; the syndicate was playing this role and is still playing it. We succeeded in amending the texts relating to the press: one text was cancelled, another was amended well, and another was partly amended in favour of the press, and we had hoped the amendment would be deeper. We were a voice for this society, the syndicate earned everyone’s appreciation, and when it was subjected to a campaign of attacks, all parties defended the syndicate and journalists.
What is your vision for improving the economic conditions of journalists?
This file has two tracks. The first is fast, such as increasing the allowance and attempting continuous negotiation with the managements of newspapers and institutions to apply the minimum wage, or raise the minimum wage, and improve conditions inside the institutions. There is an extended, long track, which relates to the profession and its development so that it remains able to express people’s concerns and its acceptance increases, because a profession without freedom is a profession that is not with the people and does not express their concerns, so they do not buy it, especially amid deteriorating economic conditions. This does not mean that the matter is only freedom, but freedom is a main part. All parties are responsible for this situation, because the state used to say that Egypt was in an exceptional situation, from which we are supposed to have emerged, and as a result of this situation major restrictions were imposed on the press, and the press paid the price for that on several levels, including distribution. If the press bore that, the state must be a party to resolving this crisis at the level of a partial, interim solution, and the state must also take part in the complete solution, as long as we have emerged from the exceptional situation. At this moment the syndicate has entered into negotiations on wages in different places and succeeded in 9 places; we are making strides in raising wages. We have also entered into negotiations to increase the allowance, and not only the increase, but also negotiating with the Supreme Council for Media Regulation to change the rules for disbursing the allowance, and all that remains is the step of its completion by the Ministry of Finance providing the financial allocations for it. We have also entered into negotiations on the tax deduction from the allowance in several institutions, but in the end what remains is improving the conditions of the press in general, and this only happens through a complete system for improving wage conditions.
How do you see the crisis of the national newspapers, especially amid talk of merging and abolishing some publications?
There has been engagement with this crisis since the first moment in the syndicate, because the national press is the factory of expertise, and in general the private press emerged from the national press. It is also one of the tools of balance because it is a state-owned press, but we have to manage it economically in a different way. That is why a main part of resolving the crisis was appointing the temporary workers to renew the blood inside the institutions, and a comprehensive system for developing the national press was put forward with the National Press Authority, and this was announced. Part of this system is developing the distribution system and the advertising system, freeing advertising from the dominance of particular bodies, and ensuring fairness in its distribution, and all this was part of the development system that was discussed clearly with the National Authority. But when it was announced, the focus was on the crisis of the temporary workers, although the announcement of the appointment of the temporary workers was part of an integrated system that was discussed, and I believe we are able to complete it.
