The relationship between money and government is a very complicated one, especially when the former serves the interests of the latter while the latter ignores the ambitions of the former. The problem is how to strike an equilibrium or to reach a point that enables both sides to secure their interests without either side overwhelming the other, and then how to sustain this equilibrium. This can all be very precarious. Not all governments are aware of how to strike such a balance. This applies in particular to the less experienced governments. They might imagine that the rising political star of some business magnate could work in their favour. They might believe, for example, that he could serve to counter the unrestrained political ambitions of other businessmen or that he could be used as a means to channel funds to supporters whom they could not support openly due to concerns related to propriety or the need to sustain an image of impartiality and non-partisanship. Or the rising businessman politician might appeal to the ruling elites at some conscious or subconscious level due to his social class and background. The businessman, for his part, might imagine that circumstances are conducive to his gradual involvement in the political realm at a time when big businessmen are shirking or feel compelled to ignore their social responsibility. He might think that this is the chance to build a grassroots support base among the younger generations and the marginalised segments of the populace who do not trust the government and are suspicious of the intentions of the businessmen from the old regime. His path to this end begins with gaining control over the various media that shape public opinion and using social networking technologies to build up a philanthropic public image of a man dedicated, for example, to serving the poor and needy in remote and marginalised areas in particular, whom the state is unable to supply with healthcare and educational services, and initiating special projects devoted to orphans or the handicapped or people afflicted with serious diseases. As part of his drive to acquire popularity among youth, he might also seek to penetrate university campuses. In all events, his prospects are enhanced by indicators of the popular approval he enjoys compared to the types of businessmen that previous regimes had relied on and that did not share his relative youth and dynamism. The central difficulty in striking a balance between the pragmatic ruling elite and the ambitious businessman resides in the danger that either or both sides could stray beyond certain bounds. The first side is not a homogeneous group. Its components do not necessarily agree on everything or share all outlooks, and they evaluate things differently according to how near or far they are from the narrow decision-making centre. The other side may succumb to the seduction of public life, the temptation of an arena virtually free of competition, and the lure of having a powerful influence over the interests of a large number of public opinion makers. Moreover, the fact that the businessman might declare that he has no desire to reach power is not necessarily an indicator of the modesty or limitations of his ambitions. Such things can change in accordance with political vicissitudes. Also, the notion of power does not necessarily mean political office; it can also include, for example, serving as an intermediary between government and the business community, or between government and the new generation of political elites who aspire to a greater say in politics. Experiences with such cases elsewhere in the world have given rise to various approaches. The most noteworthy is the Russian experience in which a number of businessmen were given the liberty to expand their influence in public affairs and then were thrown into prison when they exposed their limitless ambitions. The most salient symbol of this experience is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of the mammoth Yukos oil conglomerate who was found guilty of tax fraud and embezzlement in 2003 and subsequently pardoned by Putin in 2013 when he was no longer deemed a threat. The West offers the antithetical model in which there exists a legal framework that regulates business and the political traditions that allow businessmen to engage in civic affairs and nominate themselves for public office. There is no separation between the political and business spheres as long as all comply fully with the constitution and the law. The Egyptian case falls somewhere between these two poles. Although it fluctuated, for long stretches of time the approach was to contain businessmen and use them to reproduce the authoritarian relationship between the state and society. The outlook still prevails. The writer is executive director of the Tawasol centre for Youth Research and Studies.
