We may disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood, and we may agree with them on some issues, as we disagree and agree with other political forces. This is normal in public life. But what deserves a calm and responsible discussion is the performance of some opposition parties when they simply reject the proposed policies without coupling their objections with clear, practical, and implementable alternatives.
Those who seek populism quickly express an individual stance on every law or event, whether political, governmental, or popular, seeking a quick echo rather than a well-thought institutional position. A serious organization, which does not aim to score immediate media points, expresses its opinion through a clear official statement issued by its institutions, and through its media spokesperson, not through scattered statements from deputies or leaders here and there.
Any party has the right to object; indeed, healthy objection is fundamental in any living political system. But when a party is large in organizational scale, with a long history and a wide popular base, the evaluation criteria become different. It's not enough to just say "no". You need to say: how? how much? when? at what cost? where is the funding? and what is the impact of the decision after five years?
Politics is not a platform for speech-making, nor a popularity contest over who pleases the audience more. Politics is about managing interests, calculating numbers, assessing risks, and taking responsibility for decisions. Those who lead the public scene are expected to have economic teams, legislative experts, and specialists in public administration, who provide alternative legislative proposals, financial impact studies, and clear execution models.
People are tired of the "we are against" rhetoric. People want clear answers: If you were in the government's place, what exactly would you do? How would you address the deficit? How would you create jobs? How would you protect the middle and poor classes without jeopardizing financial stability? How will you balance justice and sustainability?
Responsible opposition doesn't just say what people like to hear; it says what they need to hear, even if it's difficult. True leadership does not merely stir emotions, but manages reality as it is, not as we wish it to be.
And I say it clearly: I am not a nihilistic opposition. I am not against the state, nor against stability, nor am I looking to demolish what exists. I am a reformist opposition, I believe in criticism for the purpose of correction, in objection for the purpose of improvement, and in review for the purpose of development. I reject mistakes, but I do not refuse the state. I oppose policies when I see them as unfair, but I do not work to overthrow the system.
What is needed is not to silence the opposition, but to develop it. Not to weaken it, but to shift it from a permanent protest discourse to a potential government project. Only then does the discussion become a mature political debate, not just an echo of anger.
Nations are built with solutions, not slogans.
