No doubt demands by workers and employees that exploded on the scene across Egypt are justified, since the 25 January Revolution destroyed the fear factor, raised limitless expectations, ended suppression and divorced wealth from power. In order to stem growing social and economic demands after the revolution it is not possible to rely on oppression or pontificating, nor merely citing endless figures about economic losses, nor just explaining the strains on the state budget, or promising to keep corruption in check. In the short run, the management of public and private institutions should hold an open and honest dialogue with protestors, with the aim to meet viable demands, listen to general complaints, and investigate individual grievances. No doubt closing the income gap as much as possible will not eliminate all grievances but only equally spread out poverty, no matter how narrow the gap becomes. Instead, steps should be taken to raise minimum income to bridge this gap —within available resources and based on productivity —and in this way it would defuse the unprecedented tensions that erupted across Egypt after the revolution. In the future, social justice will not be achieved without creating a basic sense among Egyptians to choose the next president and parliament based on platforms that combine a clear policy to end the poverty of workers, and cognizance of the necessity of socially responsible capitalism. They must also admit that fundamental socialism and fundamental capitalism have failed, and learn the lesson from history that a free market economy, like a centralised economy, has not and cannot achieve economic success or social justice. Fighting corruption is not synonymous with fighting investment, but a good way to encourage anticipated investment in production. In an article entitled “Fighting poverty by eliminating its causes” published in Al-Ahram on 7 September 2008, I quoted Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb's saying: “If poverty were a man, I would kill him.” I wrote that poverty is similar to terrorism and must be uprooted. The first seeds of terrorism are planted in “deviant thought” when interpreting religion, and a call to kill anyone who is believed to oppose their interpretation of the religious text. Similarly, the first seeds of poverty are planted in “deviant thought” about the interests of the wealthy led by a free economy which increases absolute and relative poverty among the majority of workers. I stated that targeting the areas and residents living in abject poverty should be similar to how terrorist groups and strongholds are targeted. While good intentions could be a good first aid step to alleviate poverty and deaths, uprooting poverty and terrorism are necessary to maintain dignity and life. The sense of poverty is deepened by an inefficient economic system. A centralist socialist economy is only capable of evenly distributing poverty, because it ignores the fact that an economy should be “economic” by reducing the depletion of rare resources to satisfy increasing needs. It should raise the standards of quality, production and profit in state-owned economic institutions. Poverty is also strongly felt as a result of a deficient economic system in a free market capitalist economy, because it does not use resources efficiently for public good although the individual wealth of a minority multiplies. This leads to monopolies that kill competition, and an imbalance in the distribution of power and wealth. It also imposes unfair and unreasonable pricing that threatens social, political and economic stability as a result of increased unemployment, recession, poverty and wasting wise leadership and citizenship rights. Learning the lessons of industrialised states that have achieved economic progress and social prosperity around the world, from Asia to America to Europe, it becomes clear that a social economic market system that combines economic aptitude and social justice safeguards against the dangers and losses of a social uprising, and uproots poverty entirely. The definition of poverty is based on following: neglecting the social and ethical responsibility by businessmen in their pursuit of profit at the expense of society, and ignoring the rightful interests of all the parties which are affected by the project, whether consumers, competitors or others. Poverty is a logical by-product of spending possible savings in overconsumption, and uneven investment in mostly non-production or marginal real estate sectors at the expense of investment in production, and enforcing conflict of interests through the marriage of wealth and power. Rampant corruption and overpopulation are both causes and effects of poverty that eat up resources needed for investment. On the issue of developing an economy to fight poverty, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a valuable book entitled A History of Economics: The Past as the Present in which he stated that advocates of capitalism and free economy blame the poor for their misery and deprivation. Herbert Spencer, the advocate of individualism and famous for his phrase “survival of the fittest”, believes that the state should not interfere to correct social disparities and alleviate difficulties. Galbraith believes this social Darwinism still survives today through strong resistance against the government playing a role in protecting the poor, under the pretext that poverty is the result of lower classes having too many children while ignoring the effects of development on family planning. Also, that charity is more harmful than useful, and that economists are not concerned with justice or compassion, therefore social injustice is an alien concept to economics. Galbraith notes that the dangers of unequal division of income increase when the hopes of the poor of improving their lot are dashed, not in comparison to what they had before but in comparison to the yawning gap between their incomes and paltry living standards and the incomes and consumption levels of the rich. He then poses questions that have been asked a thousand times: Could the revolution have been avoided or delayed if demands for reform were met? Why did business circles resist reform policies aiming to protect the economic system? Why are reformers viewed as enemies of the incumbent regime? Galbraith responds that when the wealthy and privileged are corrupt and incompetent, they reject reform that could save them and refuse to compromise on luxuries and privileges in the short run to avoid the problems and catastrophes in the long run. They also enjoy winning a match where many are losers. He concludes that a free market economy is no longer acceptable, and that socialism is no longer an alternative; a conclusion he reached in his book that was published before socialism collapsed. The writer is an expert at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
