|
|
We
were out somewhere in the middle of Egypt's sandy Western Desert, south of the
Qattara Depression and north of the Great Sea of Sand, when my companion, one
of the three top personalities in the international oil industry, said,
"In my view the Egyptian authorities and people are making a mistake when
they attribute current economic problems to a lack of potential or natural
resources. In fact, Egypt is rich in both; what it lacks is another vital
element— work!"
He paused for a moment, then added, "You know how much I love
Egypt and how badly I want to see its economy thrive, yet I must tell you
that, because of the political situation over the past 30 years you have lost
the 'art of work,’ and without that you cannot hope to make progress.
“I
recently went through some reports by prominent economic and political
analysts in the US and Western Europe. To my surprise, they all reached the
same conclusion, namely, that Egypt's income today is derived from five
sources (all unrelated to the 'art of work’): remittances from Egyptians
working abroad; oil revenues; revenues from the Suez Canal; tourism; and
cotton production. Except for cotton, there is virtually no added value on
these income sources. The work performed by Egyptians abroad does not count,
being part of the production process of one or more of those countries, and
regarding oil, the Suez Canal and tourism, your work
is only a marginal source of the revenue they generate."
His
words only served to reinforce my conviction that the socialist-style economic
and political systems applied in many Third World countries, such as Egypt,
Algeria, Libya, Cuba, Tanzania and parts of Southeast Asia and Africa, are
wholly to blame for the demise of the work ethic and, with it, the spirit of
enterprise and diligence. The disappearance of individual initiative and
creativity motivated by personal profit and advantage, the abolition of
differences among members of society engendered by the rigid socialist
interpretation of “equality” and the absence of the necessary element of
risk—all of which are the result of labor laws which stifle competition and
drive and make the task of management, in the private and public sectors,
well-nigh impossible by disallowing incentives—have created in countries
following the 'socialist path to development' wide sectors of citizens
unqualified for, incapable of and unwilling to work. With every passing
generation, the 'art of work' diminishes, although it is the secret of
progress and welfare and the key to stability. One of the worst disasters that
can befall a people applying a socialist political and economic model
(particularly those of a poor educational and cultural standard, which can be
said for most of the Third World) is the development of a “civil servant”
mentality and the erosion of the “entrepreneurial” spirit. This permeates
all levels of employees and may extend to include the managers of public
companies and politicians, up to the highest echelons. In all honesty, out of
over 30 ministers in the present cabinet, I can think of only one or two who
have a well-developed business sense and base their judgements on commercial
considerations (commerce and politics being two sides of the same coin),
unimpeded by the civil servant mentality.
One
need look no further for proof of this argument than to the Egyptian public
sector in which, since the 1960s, the state has sunk in the phenomenal sum of
over 1,000 billion pounds. Its return? Annual output worth 1,500m. pounds—or
a paltry 1.5% of the GDP! The public sector is plunged into a state of apathy
that has rendered it incapable of responding to Egypt's call for help. The
situation is all the more painful if we realize that, in the normal course of
events, this sector should have been able to provide Egypt annually with not
less than three times the volume of US aid to the country, aid we must try to
do without as an essential first step towards extricating ourselves from our
sorry predicament. Our heavy reliance on US aid is the inevitable result of
injudicious economic and political practices over the years and by successive
governments. While the present regime may not be accountable for reaching this
situation, it should accept responsibility for finding a radical and speedy
solution. The tables must be turned. After years in which the public was
encouraged to substitute “work” with debate and empty slogans
("ensuring the availability of goods…" "raising the level of
production…," etc.) it is time to reclaim the art of work.
It
might surprise people to learn that even in this Third World country the
"made in Egypt" label found on our products is a bluff. A closer
look at Egyptian goods available on the market will show that they are, in
fact, made elsewhere. This is true for more than half our foodstuffs,
clothing, machinery and building materials. We are not even self-sufficient in
cement! Worse still: the sum spent by Egypt every day to buy the cement
required for its construction industry is equal to its net daily income from
the Suez Canal. And how could successive governments have failed to solve the
agricultural problem in Egypt, when its solution entails nothing more than
repealing the laws which produced the present disastrous situation in the
first place? In addition, despite a wide consensus on the need to allow supply
and demand laws to govern landlord-tenant relations, the housing sector is
bogged down by laws which continue to ensure a flood of demand and scant
supply.
How can we hope to speak of “work” and “production” when the
vast majority of public sector managers prove their failure and multiply their
losses every day?
The difference between us and countries like Turkey and Greece, whose
economies are steadily growing, is spelled in our lack of productivity,
effectively, creativity—and the simple work ethic.
It is the supreme duty of the government and, in particular, the
president, as the nation's chief executive, to break the vicious circle of
failure that has exacerbated over the last 30 years. It is within that vicious
circle that Egyptians mislaid the “art of work.” This is what all loyal
citizens expect from their government, rather than economic policies reducing
expenditures in some areas and levying heavier taxes in others. These measures
fall under the heading of “non-work.” They ask a poor man with only a few
pounds to his name to redistribute that sum in his pockets, thereby increasing
his poverty, since he cannot increase his wealth, cash supply or value in any
way—except through efficient, productive and creative work.
|