The need for change:

Most Egyptians today agree that there is an urgent need to bring about fundamental changes in public life, and that this is a prerequisite for raising standards of living in the country. This is the theme of an ongoing national dialogue, about which there is a general consensus. It develops into a debate when people—those in public life and private citizens alike—suggest how best to achieve this.

It should be noted, however, that the nature of this “consensus” has changed in recent years. Thirty years ago, it was still generally believed that the country had to overcome the disastrous defeat it suffered in the 1967 War against Israel, and how to regain the territories seized by Israel at that time. Even 10  years ago, the national mood was still strongly marked by the trauma of '67, holding us hostage to the past. Moreover, the then-prevailing world order also helped keep the national debate mired in the rhetoric of the past, specifically, in the time-worn and cliche-ridden slogans of the 1950s and '60s.

Today our inner maturity, on the one hand, and the new conditions in the world, on the other, have liberated our thinking somewhat. Most of us now realize that those old slogans were not matched in reality and that neither the Egypt of the ‘60 nor of the '70s responded to the aspirations of its citizens. In addition, the collapse of the citadels of socialism revealed the utter failure of that movement, whether in its political, economic or social form, to bring affluence and social justice for any of the societies which espoused it. These factors led us to break out of our stereotyped thinking of the past, and the collective will for change has come to be informed by the following considerations:

Change must come about through a process of gradual reform, not in revolutionary upheavals. The experience of many countries over the last 50 years has convinced wide sections of the Egyptian population that the “revolutionary” path invariably fails to attain the desired goals, not least because power usually ends up in the hands of people who lack leadership qualities and who have neither the experience nor the vision required to lead their countries to a better future.

Change should not be instituted according to an ideological agenda. Ideology, which dominated the world for a century and a half, was discredited in the last decade of the 20th century, and promises to remain so for a long time to come.

Change should be directed in the first instance at achieving economic growth by providing a climate in which the tools and mechanisms of the economy can operate effectively.

Thus, the consensus for change extends also to an agreement over the modalities of how to achieve it. With the exception of a few fringe, albeit dangerous, groups, most Egyptians believe change can best come about through reform, not revolution, and that reform should be instituted according to pragmatic, not ideological, considerations. This is particularly true for economic reforms, which will in turn entail reforms in the political system.

To further probe whether Egyptians agree on the nature and direction of the required changes, we must first cast a look at today's world and how it has changed since World War II:

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, we now have the group of advanced Western nations, led by the United States, as the sole superpower at the summit of the world community.

The economic bankruptcy of the Eastern Bloc brought with it the complete collapse of the ideology to which this bloc subscribed.

The Cold War is well and truly over and, thus, so is the need for a bloc calling itself the “non-aligned movement.”

The world now recognizes that a society's progress and its ability to overcome economic crises is contingent on its ability to diffuse the spirit and dynamics of private enterprise among its citizens—that this is the only path to economic success, prosperity and progress.

And so humankind bade farewell to the 20th century with a global rationale that had nothing to do with that which prevailed for the two decades following World War II, and even less to do with that found in the early 1900s. In the new rationale, the choices are simple. Socialism in all its forms has been relegated to the realm of history; it is no longer a viable option for the future. Only two options remain: either to lurch along without a clear sense of direction or to address the world’s problems purposefully through the mechanisms of the new rationale, which are linked to the dynamics of market economy, to democracy and to human rights.

Experts on Third World issues believe developing countries’ prospects for socioeconomic growth will improve in direct proportion to the rate at which they proceed to apply these mechanisms. The enormous problems facing most Third World countries are time bombs waiting to go off, and any hesitation could prove fatal. At best, countries that procrastinate will lag further and further behind in the race for progress; at worst, they will implode, with dire consequences for their own peoples and for the world at large.

In addition to embarking on the process of reform, some countries can capitalize on their geopolitical importance to speed it up. Egypt is a good example. In the new global rationale, it can invest its unique geopolitical status to promote internal development and thus defuse what is rapidly becoming a crisis situation.

What must be changed—the individual or society?

People whose intellectual and social outlook were shaped by the ideas of Karl Marx view the “individual” and “society” very differently from those whose perceptions were shaped by the value systems in Western democracies. Where Marxists and, indeed, all socialists play down the role and importance of the individual and magnify the role and importance of society, in Western democracies the reverse is usually the case. Without delving into details, it is clear that developments on the world stage over the last 25 years have vindicated the exponents of the latter school of thought

Socialists believe in society with a capital "S," predicating all their systems on the assumption that a transcendental entity called society exists of and by itself, and that the primary function of government and the economic system is to serve it. Liberals, on the other hand, do not believe in society a mutually exclusive entity but in a community of individual citizens who are collectively known as society. The individual is a tangible entity, society is not. Thus, a prosperous and successful society is nothing more than an aggregate of prosperous, successful citizens. By the same token, a society plagued with problems is also the sum total of its parts: unsuccessful citizens combating a range of problems and deprived of the ability to work create the manner in which public life is conducted.

In Western democracies such basic concepts as human rights, the principle of legitimacy, freedom of thought and speech, and so on all aimy adopting the fundamentals of democratic states focusing on changing individual citizens. This is the key to transforming society. I would go as far as to maintain that society is merely a term coined to refer to average individuals and the common values, trends, attitudes and circumstances they share. To my mind, bringing about a positive change in individuals is the task of those holding the keys to the political, economic, cultural and social machinery of society—in other words, of government, in the broad sense of the word.

While it may be true that modern management sciences did not exist in the days Karl Marx formulated his all-encompassing theoretical manifesto, today these sciences have become the main driving force of contemporary developed societies. They are the locomotive which allows developed societies to forge far ahead of their underdeveloped counterparts, leaving them to limp along, or, in some cases, to grind to a complete standstill. Among the main principles of modern management sciences are those pertaining to human resources and quality management, which are based on the assumption that human beings are the most valuable resource for production, progress and prosperity. Indeed, human resources management is the determining factor in the progress or decline of any given organization, company, institution or people.

What creates progress—people or ideas?

A characteristic shared by many of the countries facing breakdowns in the machinery of public life, and which are now seeking the road to a better future, is the conviction that their hopes could be fulfilled and their goals achieved if only they had “good” ideas. But it is a dangerous fallacy to think that ideas might be a panacea for all ills. As we in Egypt stand poised to shift from a present fraught with problems to a future filled with hope, we must realize that we will need more than ideas to safely navigate the choppy waters separating the two. It is not ideas alone that can improve our reality or create a better future. Herein lies the difference between intellectuals and philosophers, most of whom are incapable of managing a small business or reforming even a tiny village, and top management and business leaders, who have the necessary skills to transform reality through actions, not words.

Moreover, the search for good ideas is both a lengthy process and one that creates a divisive and polemical climate, as the proponents of any given idea debate ideological differences. What we really need is people who epitomize the ideas which can serve as a bridge towards a better future. It should be remembered that great civilizations were built less on abstract ideas than by actions—drive, spirit and imagination, yes, but by individuals with the will and skill to turn dreams into reality. And if it is axiomatic that a man and his ideas constitute an integral whole, it follows that the ideas needed to reform the present and pave the way to a better future will not come from men whose ideas are based less on principles than on expediency.

The real crisis does not lie in a lack of qualified people but, rather, in the absence of those people from the public arena over the last 40 years, while others who were not necessarily the most efficient, experienced, honest, intelligent or successful Egyptians dominated. Egypt is one of the rare Third World countries blessed with a huge pool of talented people who are more than capable of efficiently and loyally running its public life. However, most are excluded from this arena because they display characteristics that are out of tune with the system in force, which is based on loyalty to a select group of individuals, the same people who have the monopoly on public posts in the state bureaucracy. Any talk of reform as meaning the implementation of better ideas—not the use of better people to achieve that—will remain no more than talk until the system wakes up and allows new ideas to pervade it.

Civilization—the product of human values

Although the term “civilization” crops up frequently in public discourse, not much effort is expended on trying to define what the term really means. It is often used as a byword for the model of the developed Western lifestyle which some of us seek to emulate. In fact, any civilization is in its essence nothing more than a collection of values. How a society regards its citizenry, the value it places on the individual and on personal freedom, the way in which it determines his relative position vis-à-vis the executive branch of government; whether it casts its rulers in the role of masters over or servants of the citizenry; the status and rights enjoyed by women, and by children; the value it places on time, on work, on the quality of work; its attitude to its minorities; the right of others to differ in beliefs, doctrines, opinions and behavior—these are the values that form the fabric of civilization.

Some may be sublime and exalted, others degenerate and ignoble. But it is extremely important when looking at other civilizations to distinguish between two levels. At the local level, each civilization has features that are characteristic of it alone. But there is also a dimension of every civilization that is not exclusive to it but belongs to the mainstream of human civilization. For example, much of what constitutes “Western civilization,” in fact, is the product of the accumulated experience of human civilization, whether in the fields of applied sciences or human and social sciences. The most striking example of a civilization where the two levels have merged in close-to-perfect harmony is Japan.

Here we must rethink the enmity and hatred that some of us harbor for Western civilization, on the grounds that it is an alien civilization. Actually, many of its most exalted values are the fruit of mainstream human civilization. Blind enmity to developed civilizations is a rejection of the essence, lessons, wisdom and accomplishments of the collective human experience, not to mention a reflection of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and fanaticism.

There are none more misguided than those who call for the adoption of the applied scientific and technological achievements of the West and the rejection of all other aspects of Western civilization. The essence of human civilization extends beyond the fields of applied science and technology to philosophy, art, literature, human rights and other fields

Some of us reject Western civilization without realizing that we are rejecting elements of human civilization, to which we, like others, have made many contributions. This enmity stems from a deep ignorance of the fact that Islam extols most of the fundamental principles on which developed civilizations are based. Likewise, much of what we believe to be the basic principles of our civilization are no more than adaptations and embodiments of regressive and degenerate values that first emerged in the Dark Ages, in the years of tyranny, repression and ignorance. Indeed, many did not emanate from our religion but from cultures in the context of which Islamic history unfolded and from which it acquired inferior values.

The phenomenal economic success of Asia’s newly industrialized countries (NIC) only confirms how important it is to distinguish between noble cultural values, on the one hand—many of which we should adopt from the West—and aberrant, regressive values (wrongly ascribed by some to our cultural heritage), on the other—which we should discard.

The ideal pyramidal structure of prosperous societies:

One of the biggest blunders committed by tens of Third World countries with social structures similar to Egypt’s is to have turned the social pyramid upside down, thereby creating a new pyramid which allows the least qualified members of society to occupy the top positions. In developed countries, on the other hand, the societal pyramid is constructed so that only the best, in terms of ability, intelligence, culture, ethics and motivation, can rise to the top. These elites command the decision-making process, guiding their countries along what they claim to be the best course. Third World countries where, because of historical conditions, state power is usually seized through coups, are subject to a different system based on personal loyalty and trust, in which men are chosen for their allegiance to the ruler rather than on merit. As a result, the top five percent of positions are not occupied by society’s best but by elements which disseminate the most inferior and abject of values throughout society as a whole.

In developed societies Social Darwinism (the law of natural selection) prevails, based on the selection by society of its best citizens for the highest posts, and this is a dynamic process. In the often regressive societies of the Third World, Social Darwinism is not allowed to operate. Rather, public life is based on loyalty and allegiance, cronyism and, at a later stage, corruption. While corruption is part and parcel of the human condition, it only proliferates in an atmosphere of inferior values where incompetent bureaucrats hold the top positions; in countries where the societal pyramid is based on the principles of Social Darwinism, it can be checked and ferreted out before harming infrastructure.

The mechanisms of change:

At this stage in its history, Egypt stands at the crossroads of three paths. One will lead to the perpetuation of the status quo, the second to still further decline, and the third to a solution of its problems, to progress and prosperity in the context of social peace and political stability. Access to the third path is contingent on devising a mechanism by which to effect the desired changes.

To begin with, the political leadership must act decisively to remove from the arena of public life those officials who are evidently unable to perform at the required standard of excellence. According to scholars of constitutional law in Western societies, democracy can only be built by democrats. By the same token, a better future for Egypt can only be built by those of its citizens who have proved their competence and dedication to the governing principles of the new era, namely, the importance of human resources and a belief in the efficiency of a market economy, the merits of modern management and marketing sciences. Public life should be administered by people who have actually succeeded in the context of these objectives, not by functionaries whose ideas, brains and objectives have been atrophied through long years of state hegemony over economic life.

The mechanism which can achieve the desired change lies in using talents similar to those which led the NIC countries of Asia from underdevelopment to remarkable economic vigor and success. The importance of this mechanism cannot be overrated: once it is set in motion, the desired reforms and eventual transformation are simply a matter of time.

To bring about change from the bottom up is virtually impossible in the current setup. Perhaps the main factor working against it is the time needed for the values of change to flow from the base of society to its summit. This could take decades, even centuries. The change that could be achieved in a generation is dependent on competent individuals who are ready to act in accordance with the new values and criteria and apply the successful experiment of the NIC of Asia. The problem in Egypt is that we continue to insist on using the wrong sort of people.

Setting new examples:

Very few of the players on the stage of Egyptian public life can be held up as examples of exceptional competence or as paragons of intelligence, knowledge and culture. Indeed, many display only modest abilities, mediocre intelligence and little culture. Worse, they often blatantly lack the qualities and moral virtue associated with leadership. Needless to say, the absence of these elements in so many of our public personalities does not bode well for the prospects of change.

The roots of the problem go back to the political climate which prevailed in Egypt in the 1950s-‘60s, when individual freedom and independent thought were suppressed, ostensibly in the name of social cohesion but in actual fact as a means of controlling society. At every level in the chain of command, superiors were obeyed without question, and obsequiousness and sycophancy were de rigeur. This is the school from which many of our functionaries graduated. Today’s requirements make it imperative to hand the reins of public life over to people who derive their value systems from different sources.

Our young people cannot be blamed for losing faith in a value system which allows inept and second-rate people to attain leading positions, and where success is more often than not due less to competency than to shameful practices or personal relations. The years-long absence of good examples was not the result of a divine curse or historical accident but stemmed from a deliberate attempt to eliminate independent thinkers and people of integrity from the public arena. The suppression and control characteristic of the last 40 years, in which most officials surrounded themselves exclusively with “yes men,” sadly explains the disappearance of good examples and the propagation of the mediocrity we know so well. We cannot ask our young people to believe in or to accept this any longer.

Egypt's need to reconcile its past, present—and future:

Throughout most of its modern history, which began with Muhammad ‘Ali's⁴⁶ accession to power in 1805, Egypt has suffered from a kind of split personality. To my mind, this stems from the educational and cultural poverty that has marked our lives over the last two centuries. This has left some of us unable to come to terms with the challenges of the present and preferring to seek refuge in the past, while others turn to the Western model of civilization, adopting its cultural mores and lifestyles. It seems the most difficult option is the one many of us have abandoned, which is simply to be ourselves, here and now. This entails sifting through our cultural heritage and discarding those elements which were merely the product of a specific time and circumstances, as well as adopting from the Western model elements that are the fruits of the collective human experience. The most important of these are not, contrary to conventional wisdom, science and technology, but the values of progress, creativity, work and innovation.

The lack of a common framework of identity has led to acute tensions between past, present and future. For some, the only acceptable framework is the past, whether the distant past, as in the case of the fundamentalists, or the recent past, such as the Nasserites. Others reject the past in favor of a future whose features and identity are still far from clear. An initiative should be launched to bring about a reconciliation between past, present and future, based on the general consensus that Egypt deserves a future better than its present or its past.

Although Muhammad ‘Ali was a great man, his model was not an unqualified success, as borne out by what happened after his reign. The same applies to Sa’ad Zaghlul,⁴⁷ Jamal Abd al-Nasser, Anwar Sadat, and the other leaders of our national struggle for independence. Now, however, we need to impose fundamental reforms that properly address the present if there is to be a better future for the sons and daughters of this nation.

The dichotomy that exists in the Egyptian psyche is not new. Reading the now-declassified dispatches sent home by Britain's representatives in Egypt between I882-1952,⁴⁸ I was struck—and pained—by how often they reported on "deep divisions among the Egyptians." It was particularly galling to read Sir Evelyn Baring’s account of his farewell party. Sir Evelyn, the Earl of Cromer, was British consul-general and de facto governor of Egypt. His farewell party was attended by Egypt’s political leaders, each of whom took him aside to complain of the others and seek his support against them.

The deep divisions among Egyptians are symptomatic of an inability on the part of many to distinguish between past, present and future. But for this confusion, there would have been minimum agreement between them. However, because of a severe decline in education and culture, exacerbated by a sequence of leaders who, for over a century following ‘Ali's abdication, were not the most intelligent, cultured or honest individuals, nor necessarily among the most able and talented, this trait became so imbued it seemed to be part of our genetic makeup.

One can only admire the Chinese for avoiding this pitfall and for their accomplishments in recent years. When the leaders of the People's Republic realized that socialist ideas had become obsolete, they decided to open the economy to market forces, thereby giving an enormous boost to China's gross national product. However, they did not open the door to ideological debate because they understood that this would only sharpen differences and bring about a damaging schism between past, present and future.

Choosing between reality and illusion:

There is no doubt that the historical and cultural conditions in which Arab civilization evolved have affected the way Arabs and, by extension, Egyptians, think. One of the most important specifics of Arab thinking is a tendency to confuse the possible with the impossible, a certain romanticism which often blurs the fine distinctions between what should be, what could be and what will be. Because of this tendency, the Arabs have allowed many historical opportunities to slip through their fingers, rejecting offers that they often later realize would have been to their advantage. It is thus vital that those who mold our options, whether in foreign or domestic policy, should be able to distinguish between reality and wishful thinking. To be fair, the decision-making process under presidents Sadat and Mubarak⁴⁹ has been characterized by a high degree of pragmatism in the field of foreign policy. On the domestic front, however, things are different. Although decisions here too are informed in large measure by practical considerations, many of our public personalities still tend to confuse reality with hopes. It is important to understand that domestic issues need people of a different calibre than foreign policy matters. At the same time, internal options are closely linked to ideologies. This leaves the field open to beliefs, views and solutions stemming from a past which, though totally discredited, still has representatives in key posts. It is obvious to any observer of the Egyptian scene that men and ideas of the past are obstructing those of the present and future. It is also obvious that their motives are not purely ideological, but linked to personal interests and careerism.

Egypt must base its economic and social options on a realistic appraisal of where things stand. In this it should be guided by the example of the Asian countries which are now prospering thanks, in large part, to the contribution of efficient, highly-qualified people motivated by the ideals of the age: political liberalism, market economy, and modern management systems capable of compressing the time frame required for change and development.

The temple of socialism has come crashing down, and socialist ideology and experience are buried in the rubble. Standing on the ruins will only perpetuate failure and establish a pattern of crises and disasters. The ability to differentiate between the ideas stemming from the barren wasteland of socialism and those beckoning to the fertile gardens of success, production and prosperity is the key to differentiating between illusion and reality when it comes to choosing the right options.

It is worth noting that some people, despite their professional ability and competence, who should have been among the first to embrace the cardinal principles of the new age, continue to cling to principles and value systems that have no place in today's world. The only explanation for this blind loyalty to socialist ideals (or, in some cases, to the notion of state capitalism) by people who should know better is that it reflects a certain nostalgia for their youth in the 1950s or ‘60s.

Two main features characterize the world of today and promise to become even more prominent in future:

- The world is and will become ever more “internationalist” in nature, as old frontiers break down and markets and communities open to all. Thanks to recent developments on the political font, as well as to the information revolution, the world has been transformed into a global village displaying very different characteristics from any we have known in the past.

-  In this new world of accelerated change and greater interdependence, decision makers will have to involve themselves intimately with the specifics of economic and social life in their countries—that is, they will have to focus on the trees rather than maintain an overall view of the forest, as they have done in the past.

These two features will lead to the emergence of a new breed of politicians. The challenges posed by an open world in which trade competition will become ever more intense call for leaders who are in effect executive managers, not politicians in the traditional sense of the word. A politician will need more than judiciousness and level-headedness in the new set up. To be successful and effective, he will need to have a broad grasp of many areas of public life, paralleling the managerial talents of top chief executive officers.

Singapore's prime minister who, in just under 30 years, transformed his country from a stereotypically poor and underdeveloped Southeast Asian state into an outstanding success story should serve as an example for leaders hoping to give their countries an edge in a fiercely competitive world.

The conspiracy theory:

There is a pervasive belief among many Third World peoples that certain forces, including some Western intelligence agencies, are involved in a conspiracy aimed at achieving global domination and grinding the poor countries underfoot. The conspiracy theory is often tinged with an ideological hue, either by diehard socialists or by others obsessed with the idea that they are the main targets of a conspiracy, which of course exists only in their minds.

Another mechanism which fuels the belief in the conspiracy theory among millions of people is the Western economic system, which is based on competition both inside and outside the advanced capitalist societies. If one face of competition is that various economic units vie for a bigger share of the market by enhancing their products and services, expanding operations and maximizing profits, the other is that a bigger share for some means a smaller share for others. The spirit of competition is the cornerstone of Western liberal democracy and it is normal that it should govern the relations between the economic units, governments and companies of the outside world. In other words, if it is logical that those who compete among themselves should also compete with others, then the same logic dictates that they should seek to maintain their edge as seller to the others' buyers, producers to their consumers and exporters to their importers.

Thus, when the proponents of the conspiracy theory accuse the West of wanting Third World countries to remain at their present level of development, they are at the same time quite right and completely wrong. They are right because the laws of the market impose their own logic, and within that logic the West would not like its domination of world markets challenged. They are wrong because there is no conspiracy, only the natural workings of the machinery of the capitalist economic (and, hence, political) system. We should seek to understand the inner workings of the system and use them to our advantage if we hope to have a place in a world governed by the law of survival of the fittest. We should also remember that the activities of institutions in countries with a market economy, including the government, proceed in accordance with corporate law mechanisms

Who are we today?

If our hopes of bringing about the fateful transformation that can lead us towards a brighter future are ever to materialize, we must overcome the identity crisis that has held us in its grip for so many years. It is high time we come to terms with the fact that we are, before all else, Egyptians. That is not to say our identity does not include an Arab component, only that it is not the primary component. For example, our literature is essentially Arab, including works by Christian Arabs, but that is not enough to stamp us with an all-Arab identity. As to Islam, while there is no doubt that it is one of the most basic elements in our civilizational make-up, clearly Egyptians, Nigerians, Pakistanis and Malaysians are not one and the same thing. We are Moslems in the Egyptian manner: Egypt's Islam has been imbued with the country's historical characteristics of tolerance and coexistence between different faiths.

It is common in Egypt today to hear people from different walks of life bemoaning the “death” of ethics, the erosion of the country's moral fiber and the proliferation of many ignoble values, such as envy. Unfortunately, they are right. But it is necessary to question why this state of affairs has come about. I believe the collapse of moral principles and the spread of envy, not only between people but also between classes, can be traced to a specific mechanism.

In societies where people know the background of wealth, fame and success, and where this background is based on hard work, struggle and ability, then and only then will people and society accept wealth, fame and success as the natural result of visible processes. More often than not, success stories of this kind are the object of admiration and respect.

When people realize how much effort and will went into achieving success, whether in building up a huge fortune or attaining a high position, they will accept it. But when personal relations, abuse of power, opportunism, corruption and darkness are the main elements behind many examples of fortune and fame, two phenomena are bound to emerge:

-  The first is the lack of respect with which people come to regard examples of fortune and fame, and the widespread feeling that these are the fruits of dishonorable and manipulative practices conducted outside the channels of accountability.

-  The second is a refusal to admit the right of the rich and famous to enjoy their “ill-gotten” gains, claiming their success was attained more by chance and opportunity than by hard work or exceptional abilities. This naturally creates an atmosphere of envy and frustration.

By allowing mediocre people to rise to the pinnacles of wealth and success, the system itself breeds envy and hatred in society, devalues the virtues of excellence and hard work and encourages young people to seek short cuts to success. After all, why should they strive for excellence in a society where success stories based on true talent and ability are few while those based on chance, nepotism and the exchange of favors abound?