Good governance requires more than imported liberalism, writes Amin Howeidy The problems that Egypt is facing are no secret. Every state is beset by problems and discussing them openly should not be a cause for upset. What is worrisome, however, is when the problems increase and multiply like hares while efforts made to combat them crawl along like tortoises. Yet after overhauling tax and customs duties, done with great fanfare, the present government seemed once more to withdraw from the arena, content to approach vital, everyday issues on a piecemeal basis, like a firefighting crew trying to put out a massive blaze flame by flame. The prime minister's statement of 19 December, 2004 contrived to ignore ever louder calls for reform. It was as though the Arab Morocco Conference, held a few weeks ago on the role of the state and civil society in bringing about reform, the Strategic Conference in Dubai, which debated scenarios for the region by 2020 and the Hertziliya conference examining future Israeli policy up to 2020, had simply not happened. If some think this too hasty a judgement on a new government it is because they fail to distinguish between evaluating strategies of governance and the tactics adopted by an individual administration. Governance operates across a broad front and is the means to implement the qaccumulkated policies of successive governments. Problems are handed down from one government to the next. The current administration inherited a collapsing education system, high levels of unemployment, corruption, low production, a currency on the slide and structural imbalances in the budget. We can only hope that it does not hand them on to the next cabinet. Good governance requires a clear framework within which individual governments operate and which allows them to confront foreign threats and internal challenges. This framework should serve as a lighthouse, illuminating a path through the high seas and howling gales of political life and allowing us to navigate past the rocks and whirlpools in our path. Good governance requires a clear manifesto that is consistently implemented by successive governments. In the absence of such a manifesto progress can only be random and pressing issues have a tendency to remain unsolved. The current government, for example, has avoided attempts to address the problems it inherited, opting instead to reshape the role of the state in the national economy. In doing so it has adopted liberal policies that the economy, in its current critical state, may not be able to bear. Now we have passed the point of no return the following measures are now incumbent on the government. When the government hands over those tasks for which it can no longer assume responsibility it must, at the very least, place them in capable hands. It has decided to make the private sector responsible for national security. We can only hope it has made a good choice. It must be consistent in following up the situation and intervene when necessary. The private sector, after all, utilises a considerable portion of the funds for which the government is responsible. Alternatives must be planned in advance, in the case of necessary intervention, and well-researched projections must be in place and not kept under lock and key. Liberalism does not mean unbounded freedom. It is better that the state intervene in affairs in varying degrees -- be it heavy, gentle or hardly noticeable. A flexible approach to intervention might produce the third way that we've been waiting for since economy, like politics, is not a matter of black and white but rather a mix of the two. Blind imitation of the West is harmful. It disregards the differences in political and social environments. The same is true if we were to enact freedoms, abolish the emergency laws and institute rotation of power: we would then be imitating not just their economic but also their political system. Yet what is good for citizens of Washington, Kansas and Denver is not necessarily good for us. A sound state can only be built on solid foundations. These foundations require intensive production across all areas of life. This is the cure for our ills. The government is concentrating on increasing internal and foreign investment, which is all well and good, but it is only one weapon in the battle for increased production. Corruption, too, must be combated and business relationships regulated. Realistic production targets must be set, along with a host of other initiatives. Government agencies must lead the battle for increased production. Ministers must visit cities, towns, villages and production zones. They must listen to the people and understand how they feel. And the people must be kept informed about what is happening to them and what will happen. Copying what others have done won't make us stronger and dressing ourselves up in finery won't make us better. The state must deal with us by being honest about the conditions we face and not by indulging our prejudices. We must remember the story of the mouse who asked the sorcerer to turn him into a lion because he was scared of the other animals in the jungle. The sorcerer turned him into a lion, but a few days later the mouse returned and said, "O mighty sorcerer, you turned me into a lion but I'm still frightened of the beasts of the jungle." The sorcerer replied, "And so you shall remain. You have taken on the body of a lion but you have the heart of a mouse." Production with fair and equal distribution is the cure we need. Without it we are like the British playwright Bernard Shaw who, when someone asked him why he was bald, but had a thick beard, replied, "A lot of production and poor distribution". Production cannot grow and prosper in the absence of good governance and a constitution that regulates affairs while the state is being built, allowing it to grow tall, strong and stable.
