The last six years have witnessed what can undeniably be termed the most sincere efforts over the last four decades to redress the political and economic situation in Egypt. However, inasmuch as these efforts have hitherto been directed at reforming this or that aspect of the system, and not at the general framework of  that system, we believe they have reached a dead end. The time has come for a different kind of approach. Over the past six years we have been dealing with the symptoms, now we have to tackle the very core of the diseases if they are not to become terminal. The situation calls for a frontal attack on the root causes  of the problems plaguing us, not for stop-gap  solutions to their manifestations. We advocated just such a global approach in a series of articles which  ran in the press through 1985 and were published in book form early in 1986 under the title: "What is to be Done? Diagnosing and Analyzing the Problems of Contemporary Egypt". The present government seems to be headed towards just such a course. The way in which it is handling  the problem of subsidies and the question of foreign exchange rates indicates that it is determined to tackle the root cause of the disease rather than to address each symptom separately in a futile attempt to alleviate  each and every one of them. The only treatment that can bring about a cure is one that deals with the ailment, not with its symptoms. Ending the chaos which has dominated our political and economic life for four decades entails a great deal of preparation. A solid groundwork must be laid before we can come to grips with the roots of the problems and their main causes without occasioning political and social 'cracks'. Nor is the task made any easier by the political opposition groups in Egypt today, whose working methods are characterized by intellectual hooliganism, sectarian priorities and barbaric modes of discussion. With President Hosny Mubarak's reelection to a second term in office, hopes have been raised in anticipation of a change in the manner of confronting problems, moving from a stage of dealing with the multitude of symptoms to that of attacking the causes of the diseases head-on. In fact, there are no more than four main diseases: The first disease is embodied in the public sector. We believe the bottom line target we must strive to achieve over the next six years is the liquidation of those units in the public sector which are incurring losses. As long as they remain, they will continue to be large gaping wounds needlessly bleeding our economy white, to the benefit of no one except those who derive personal advantage from the empire of a public sector, so detrimental to Egypt, to its people and to its economy. However, if the public sector is put up for sale in its present shape it would find no buyers. No private investor would accept to purchase the loss-making public sector companies under the present labour legislations. That being the case, we must agree on a policy to get rid of the losing sectors and allow the private sector to operate unhampered by legislations which would abort its success. As for public sector units which do not incur losses, they can hopefully be helped to become economically viable if the millstones now hanging round their  necks are removed: viz, the prefixed prices at which they are now forced to sell their products and the current Marxist-inspired labour legislations under which the hands of management are effectively tied. These laws have created a climate which not only protects lazy workers and offers no incentive to efficient ones to maintain their standard but, by divesting management of its primordial right to reward and sanction, puts paid to any hopes of successful and efficient management. Any economist worth his salt, indeed, any informed layman, realizes the primacy of management in the economy. Management is the creative factor which can bring into being all the elements of success, just  as it can create the elements of failure and sterility. To deliver the public sector from the constraint of inefficient management is extremely difficult, but it is also a condition sine qua non. How else can we develop the public sector under legislations which not only hamper management and operation but also burden the boards of directors of public sector companies with a quota of ignorance by requiring them to incorporate members who know nothing of management or production? The same problem facing the boards of directors of public sector enterprises exists on a much more dangerous level, that of the highest legislative council in Egypt, the People's Assembly, which is required  by law to draw 50% of its members from among  those who have proved to be the least efficient, the least knowledgeable, the least cultured and the least experienced. On this point, we can only echo the views of the prominent writer, Mr. Tharwat Abaza, who quite justifiably wonders how we could ever have allowed, indeed, how we could still continue to allow, our laws to be passed by a council half of whose members do not meet the minimal requirements of experience, culture, knowledge and intellect. Suffice it to compare the standard of debate in the People's Assembly with that of the Shura Council (the upper house of parliament), where we have recently witnessed a style of debate marked by a sophisticated and constructive exchange of ideas. Thus the first disease which plagues Egypt, namely, the public sector, can be attributed to a flood of laws which undermine production and successful management, in addition to imposing a quota of ignorance and inefficiency which turns the boards of directors of public sector companies into sinecures for the least experienced and least efficient groups: those who are fully cognizant of their rights and minimally conscious of their obligations. The second disease or idol that needs to be confronted squarely and to be dealt with boldly, openly and directly is the question of education. Our conclusions on the matter are laid out in a series of articles now being published in Al-Akhbar daily under the heading of: "The Tragedy of Education and Culture in Egypt". The very future of Egypt depends on what remedial steps we shall take in the field of education. If those who wish to retain the idols inherited from years of errors and empty slogans win the day, and impede enlightened efforts to reform the institution of education, there is no future for Egypt. How can anyone believe that the present educational system can possibly breed great scientists or learned men in any field, men without whom there can be no kind of progress or development? The third disease or idol to be pulled down during President Mubarak's second term of office is the general agricultural setup in Egypt. We do not in any way propose the restitution of nationalised land to its original owners. No sane man would make such a suggestion which would, anyhow, not solve the crisis of agriculture in our country which we firmly believe was not,   is not and never will be due to the nationalisation of land. The main cause was and still  is the body of laws governing the legal relationship between landowners and tenant farmers. Unless Egyptian agriculture is liberated from those laws that are so nefarious for the entire agricultural sector, the process of deterioration which began thirty years ago when the new laws governing land lease began to poison every possibility of progress, creativity, development and versatility in Egyptian agriculture will continue. If we do not break the legal barriers which are so harmful for Egyptian agriculture and the Egyptian economy, we will continue to import half of Egypt's food, with all the implications this carries in the way of political constraints. The greatest service anyone can render Egypt in this respect is to achieve the country's self-sufficiency in wheat production. This is possible only if we can bring about radical changes in the main orientations of Egyptian agriculture, thus allowing Egypt to become truly independent and not independent in name only. The fourth disease, or idol, to be confronted in the coming few years is that of housing. The onset of the disease can be traced to a series of misguided decisions issued in the fifties and early sixties by which the state hoped to ease the plight of tenants and which led, instead, to their victimization. It is to be hoped  that, when dealing with this major problem, the government will not tackle the symptoms and neglect the disease. It is not by prohibiting the practice of  'key money' or discouraging ownership by tenants of residential flats that the problem will be solved. This piecemeal approach is doomed to failure because it addresses the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Key money is a standard symptom of another disease, namely, housing legislations, which govern landlord-tenant relations and which have produced three major results: -       Investors are reluctant to make substantial outlays of capital in the construction of  housing units because of the poor return on investment as a result of arbitrarily fixed rents which neither reflect reality nor the normal interaction of supply and demand. Hence the decreasing number of available housing units as compared to increasing demand. -       The market has engendered subsidiary  channels, such as key money and the sale of housing units, to circumvent the crippling effects of housing laws. -       The quality of housing has deteriorated, with poor architecture, poor construction techniques and poorer maintenance now the norm. Hence the hundreds of thousands of very low-grade houses that have sprung up and the appallingly high incidence of buildings collapsing -often on the heads of the tenants- because their owners tried to cut costs without regard to elementary principles of safety in construction, nor, a priori, to considerations of aesthetics. Those who advocate such measures as prohibiting ownership of residential flats or as compelling owners of vacant flats to lease them out are obviously not versed in economic laws. Had they been, they would have known that such measures are useless and impractical, no more, in fact, than a panacea for one of the symptoms and not a cure for the disease itself. Such then are the four major diseases or idols from which Egypt suffers today. A comprehensive cure, one that attacks the very roots and causes of these diseases, is what we expect from President Mubarak's second term in office. The present government's handling of the problems of subsidies and rates of currency exchange is cause for optimism that the cure is a real possibility and not just a dream. As to why we chose to head this article "The Four Idols", it is because the condition of these four major areas, the public sector, education agriculture and housing in Egypt, has become similar to that of idols of ancient times with their high priests who, alone, benefit from their existence. As for the rest of the people, they are the ones who suffer from the perpetuation of such idols and their professional high priests.