{"id":17642,"date":"2025-03-12T16:54:25","date_gmt":"2025-03-12T14:54:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/?p=17642"},"modified":"2026-10-24T15:07:03","modified_gmt":"2026-10-24T13:07:03","slug":"freddy-elbaiady","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/freddy-elbaiady\/","title":{"rendered":"Freddy El-Bayadi: Egypt Faces a Debt Crisis. Where Did the Borrowed Money Go?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Photography: Hayder Kandil
\nDesign: Aya Saber
\nVideo editing: Khaled Abdallah<\/strong><\/p>\n

Freddy El-Bayadi, a member of the Egyptian House of Representatives for the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, has taken part in discussing a number of legislative and oversight issues, and has submitted several briefing requests on various topics, including the change to the general secondary certificate system, train accidents and the government’s economic policies.<\/p>\n

In this interview, El-Bayadi discusses the role of Parliament in overseeing the government and the extent to which the absence of an opposition affects legislative work, as well as his views on the economic situation, human rights and the future of political life in Egypt, among other issues.<\/p>\n

Recommended reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hamdeen Sabahi: Today’s economic situation is the result of the breaking of the January Revolution
\n<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

Ahmed Tantawi: Egypt needs an alternative to the authorities and the opposition (interview)
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Hisham Kassem: I asked the president not to run, and they imprisoned me (interview)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parliament and the Opposition<\/b><\/h1>\n


\nTo begin, we would like to talk about the briefing requests you have submitted on many controversial topics. Was there any response or reply regarding those requests?<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

It is important to clarify that not all briefing requests are discussed. Some requests have indeed been discussed, while others received neither discussion nor a response. Nevertheless, these requests found a wide echo in the media and in public opinion. <\/span><\/p>\n

Under the established procedures, briefing requests are submitted to Parliament, where they are discussed by the House in coordination with the competent committee, and officials study these requests or respond to them. There are requests that have indeed been discussed, and for some of them we succeeded in obtaining a response. For example, I submitted a briefing request concerning the bridge that was being built in Heliopolis, which is an urban and cultural area. This bridge was considered a disfigurement of the area, and a request to halt its construction was indeed submitted. The request was answered and construction of the bridge was halted.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the other hand, there are other requests that were not discussed and received no response. But in the end, this is our role, which we will carry out until our last day in Parliament, because it is a trust placed in us by the people, regardless of the extent of the response.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/b>Many criticisms are directed at Parliament regarding its oversight role over the government. What is your comment on that?<\/b><\/p>\n

Parliament’s role is fundamentally one of oversight and legislation, but does Parliament perform its role adequately? Unfortunately, the answer is no. When we reach the point of taking action or holding a minister to account, or rejecting a law proposed by the government, we find that the majority tends to vote in favour of the government, and this is because the majority controlling Parliament is made up of pro-government parties. Although there are some opposition members who express their views forcefully inside Parliament, the majority always sides with the government’s opinion, even if that opinion is not the best for the citizen and the nation.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Unfortunately, the majority always sides with the government’s opinion, and this is a problem. There must be genuine listening to the other opinion, because an opinion that differs from the government’s is not necessarily harmful to it or to the nation. On the contrary, the opposition often has opinions and proposals that serve the government’s interest and the public good. Nevertheless, the government ignores those opinions, only to discover later that listening to them would have led to better results. What is required is to analyse and study differing opinions before rejecting them, because this promotes decisions that serve the interest of everyone, the government and the nation alike.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

You said that some briefing requests are not considered or discussed. What is the reason?<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

This is governed by Parliament’s policies, which decide which requests are considered and which will be ignored. It depends on how Parliament views the importance of the briefing requests submitted, and there are several factors beyond the control of those who submit briefing requests that determine this. Parliament is the one that judges which requests will be discussed or ignored.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What is your view of the opposition’s performance inside Parliament?<\/b><\/p>\n

The opposition’s crisis inside Parliament lies in its small numbers, and there are some members who are counted as opposition but who in reality do not play their role in the opposition. Those who actually oppose inside Parliament are few in number, and although their voices are sometimes loud, their impact is unfortunately unclear, because the majority prevails in the end. This is a problem linked to the composition of a Parliament controlled by pro-government parties. Had the number of opposition members been larger, their impact would have been greater in favour of the citizen and the nation, and not only in favour of the opposition. The greater the diversity of differing opinions, the more positive the effect on the decision-maker, leading to votes for the most beneficial decisions.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Does that mean you see the electoral alliance between the opposition and the pro-government parties in the 2020 elections as positive, and that it should be repeated because it strengthens the opposition’s presence inside Parliament?<\/b><\/p>\n

This is not the time for that decision; many factors are still missing. When we decided in 2020 to enter the parliamentary elections within an electoral alliance with pro-government parties, we saw that this was the only way to enter Parliament. We had many candidates in the individual-seat races, but unfortunately they did not win, even though they deserved to. Some of them challenged the election results in court, but so far these cases have not been decided. We therefore considered this approach the only means of entering Parliament and dealing with the issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, we always try to be positive and to take part in the political scene as long as there is an opportunity to do so. We set clear conditions when we entered this alliance: that it was an electoral alliance only, not a political one. We did not give up our principles of opposing the government’s policies inside Parliament, and we acted according to our vision. Through our experience, observers saw how the party and its MPs expressed their positions clearly, and at times we were the only party strongly opposing the government’s policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for the upcoming elections, we have not yet decided our final position. We are waiting for more information that will help us make the decision. In the previous elections, there was an internal debate in the party about entering the alliance with pro-government parties, and there were voices within the party opposing it, but the majority within the party approved the alliance. So now is not the time to talk about the upcoming elections without full clarity of vision.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some believe that an alliance with pro-government parties strips the opposition of its most important condition, which is independence. What is your view?<\/b><\/p>\n

I respect this differing opinion and appreciate its merit. But the question that arises here is: how could this alliance strip the opposition of its independence? This alliance did not impose any political conditions, and it was not a purely political alliance. No pressure was exerted on the party’s MPs to adopt particular policies or positions. The party’s MPs were not bound by any restrictions, and no red lines were drawn for them.<\/span><\/p>\n

We spoke and took our positions based on our principles and our political vision. This means that we enjoyed full independence and moved freely, except for the restrictions imposed on everyone in the political scene, such as restrictions on the freedom of political life, the media and freedom of expression. But our alliance with pro-government parties did not place any restrictions on us as a party or on our MPs inside Parliament.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/b>Parliament has been accused of issuing legislation that has weighed heavily on citizens and was unfair, and despite objections to most of it, it insisted on passing it, as happened with the Criminal Procedure Law. Why? And what is your comment?<\/b><\/p>\n