The most pressing domestic debate these days centres round the need for political reform and the ways we might inject new life into our political system by stimulating broader popular participation.

The lack of a comprehensive vision of political reform means demands in this regard have tended to be scattered and incoherent, in terms of substance and timing. The reforms we have seen so far -- the annulment of Law 105 regarding State Security Courts, the amendment of Article 76 and the promulgation of associated legislation, appear ad hoc and disjointed.

A major cause of this lack of cohesion is that demands for reform, and the response to these demands, have been reactive rather than proactive. Current demands for reform seem less an attempt to raise the conditions of political life than a release of three decades of frustration. And the response to these demands seems less an attempt to revivify the body politic than to revive the flaccid Egyptian political system, appease outside powers and, simultaneously, allay growing pressure at home.

The opposition, which not too long ago demanded immediate action regardless of the complexities involved in making the transition from dictatorship to democracy, is now complaining of the speed with which the government has enacted certain reforms, notably the amendment of Article 76. And while the government once pleaded for more time it proceeded with unseemly haste when it came to changing the procedures for selecting the president.

Much of the current confusion and ill-feeling could have been avoided had the government and opposition possessed a clear objective. In order to remedy growing tensions we must develop mechanisms to better manage the socio- political transitions we are undergoing. Lebanon, South Africa and some Eastern European nations have passed through similar transitions and we can learn from their experiences. In each case political reform was accompanied by a pause, allowing time to learn from past mistakes. Only then was it possible to proceed.