Proposals to cancel the debt of Egypt's press institutions are dangerous to the domestic and foreign standing of the state, writes Amin Howeidi* One of the many marvels in the news these days is that about dropping the debt of accumulated taxes for government press institutions. The justification for this strange course of action is that these institutions are not government-owned companies but rather agencies concerned with enlightenment, the formation of public opinion, democratic values and freedom. This justification is as strange as the course of action itself. The immenseness of the sum -- LE7 billion -- has shaken me, for we are a simple, impoverished country whose coffers are empty, forcing us to take out loans at home and abroad. Moreover, the taxes that are levied serve the needs and hopes of the people through services in education, health and other sectors. Dropping such an exorbitant sum would be a direct assault on the hopes of the people, a people that lacks so much and asks for so little. Moreover, the press is not the only tool for enlightenment, building democracy and creating freedom. Every state agency has its duty to serve the nation and its citizens. The treasury minister and monitoring agencies must shoulder responsibility for this insubordination of the system. What does this state of affairs mean? What would the decision that might be taken on the basis of reported recommendations imply? It would mean entrenching the chaos of expenditures and granting legitimacy to those who lack it. It would mean the absence of respect for laws and statutes. It would imply an assault on law and the rights of the people. It would mean encouraging the failure to enact statutes, violation of the law, and lack of respect for the state's authority. It would imply that irresponsibility has gained precedence over rights, and that rights lack bravado when confronting power. This problem of taxes that so many are discussing is long overdue for remedy. The Supreme Council of the Press described it as the state conceding its rights, but analysts were needed to execute the decision and thus a committee was formed to study the status of press institutions. It recommended either wiping the debt or increasing the financial capital of the concerned institutions, thus overlooking the real entitlement in this case. It flattered the institutions despite their having committed serious violations of the state's rights after the state placed its confidence in those responsible for the management of these newspapers, including their funds. Those responsible failed the state, and the debts piled up. The policy of accruing debt has become a virtual slogan for the state and its institutions, and includes trivial spending and the squandering of what is in their pockets without consideration for the serious ramifications this may have for the state. As such, the committee's recommendation put those responsible for the problem at ease, clearing them as innocent and burdening the state with new obligations. I worry about the state being unable to bear more than it already does should the situation continue in this vein. Where were the former prime ministers and treasury ministers as they watched these assaults committed by our press institutions? Why did they remain silent? Where were the numerous monitoring agencies ? Where was the Supreme Council of the Press, which should supervise and hold the press accountable? It would be a calamity if it had known about it, and a greater disaster yet if it feigned ignorance. The problem is serious, and will not be solved except by means of accountability and liability. Officials must be held accountable, even if they leave their posts, and new officials must commit to shouldering the legacy of their predecessors. Accountability is legitimate, for it deters others and obliges officials in other branches to pay up what they owe to the state or to others and to comply with their loans. The state must impose its authority, making everyone stand before it on equal footing. Punishment is the practical and sole means of treating non-compliance with laws and statutes. As for liability, institutions are liable before the state and others for all the responsibilities that fall upon their shoulders. Changes in management from time to time do not release them of their responsibilities or cancel their transactions. The change of ruling regimes in a state does not absolve it of its responsibilities and commitments. The replacement of officials by others does not imply the dropping of liability, whether to the state, individuals or other institutions. This solution forms a challenge for the new administrations that must draft plans and programmes stretching many years, overseen by the Supreme Council of the Press. Timid solutions to major problems turn mistakes into sins. This is what has happened in the case we are now facing. Dropping the rights of the state before others is not within the authority of anyone. The state's residents are responsible for preserving it and its rights. Its money is that of the people, and no individual, committee or entity can concede what the people own. Lowering the state to its knees at home may become prelude to its humiliation abroad. It is a dangerous path that should be foreclosed. * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of General Intelligence.
