A CHARACTERISTIC shared by many of the countries facing breakdowns in the machinery of public life, and which are now seeking the road to a better future, is the conviction that their hopes could be fulfilled and their goals achieved if only they had "good" ideas. But it is a dangerous fallacy to think that ideas might be a panacea for all ills. It is not ideas alone that can improve our reality or create a better future. Herein lays the difference between intellectuals and philosophers most of whom are incapable of managing a small business or reforming even a tiny village, and top management and business leaders who have the necessary skills to transform reality through actions, not words. Moreover, the search for good ideas is both a lengthy process and one that creates a divisive and polemical climate, as the proponents of any given idea debate ideological differences. What we really need are people who epitomise the ideas which can serve as a bridge towards a better future. It should be remembered that great civilisations were built less on abstract ideas than by actions – drive, spirit and imagination, yes, but essentially by individuals with the will and skill to turn dreams into reality. And if it is axiomatic that a man and his ideas constitute an integral whole, it follows that the ideas needed to reform the present and pave the way to a better future will not come from men, whose ideas are based less on principles than on expediency. One of the biggest blunders committed by tens of Third World countries with social structures similar to Egypt's is to have turned the social pyramid upside down, thereby creating a new pyramid which allows the least qualified members of society to occupy the top positions. In developed countries, on the other hand, the societal pyramid is constructed so that only the best, in terms of ability, intelligence, culture, ethics and motivation, can rise to the top. These elites command the decision-making process, guiding their countries along what they claim to be the best course. Third World countries, where, because of historical conditions, state power is usually seized through coups, are subject to a different system based on personal loyalty and trust, in which men are chosen for their allegiance to the ruler rather than on merit. As a result, the top five per cent of positions are not occupied by society's best but by elements which disseminate the most inferior and abject of values throughout society as a whole. In developed societies, Social Darwinism (the law of natural selection) prevails, based on the selection by society of its best citizens for the highest posts, and this is a dynamic process. In the often regressive societies of the Third World, Social Darwinism is not allowed to operate. Rather, public life is based on loyalty and allegiance cronyism and, at a later stage, corruption. While corruption is part and parcel of the human condition, it only proliferates in an atmosphere of inferior values, where incompetent bureaucrats hold the top positions; in countries where the societal pyramid is based on the principles of Social Darwinism, it can be checked and ferreted out before harming infrastructure. Public life should be administered by people who have actually succeeded in the context of these objectives, not by functionaries, whose ideas, brains and objectives have been atrophied through long years of state hegemony over economic life. The mechanism which can achieve the desired change lies in using talents similar to those which led the NIC countries of Asia from underdevelopment to remarkable economic vigour and success. The importance of this mechanism cannot be overrated: once it is set in motion, the desired reforms and eventual transformation are simply a matter of time. To bring about change from the bottom up is virtually impossible in the current set-up. Perhaps the main factor working against it is the time needed for the values of change to flow from the base of society to its summit. This could take decades, even centuries. The change that could be achieved in a generation is dependent on competent individuals, who are ready to act in accordance with the new values and criteria and apply the successful experiment of the NIC of Asia. No doubt, the historical and cultural conditions in which Arab civilisation evolved have affected the way Arabs and, by extension, Egyptians, think. One of the most important specifics of Arab thinking is a tendency to confuse the possible with the impossible, a certain romanticism, which often blurs the fine distinctions between what should be, what could be and what will be. Because of this tendency, the Arabs have allowed many historical opportunities to slip through their fingers; rejecting offers that they often later realise would have been to their advantage. It is thus vital that those who mould our options, whether in foreign or domestic policy, should be able to distinguish between reality and wishful thinking. The temple of socialism has come crashing down, and socialist ideology and experience are buried in the rubble. Standing on the ruins will only perpetuate failure and establish a pattern of crises and disasters. The ability to differentiate between the ideas stemming from the barren wasteland of socialism and those beckoning to the fertile gardens of success, production and prosperity is the key to differentiating between illusion and reality when it comes to choosing the right options. It is worth noting that some people who should have been among the first to embrace the cardinal principles of the new age, despite their professional ability and competence, continue to cling to principles and value systems that have no place in today's world. The only explanation for this blind loyalty to socialist ideals (or, in some cases, to the notion of state capitalism) by people who should know better is that it reflects a certain nostalgia for their youth in the 1950s or '60s. Two main features characterise the world of today and promise to the world is and will become ever more "internationalist" in nature, as old frontiers break down and markets and communities open to all. Thanks to recent developments on the political front, as well as to the information revolution, the world has been transformed into a global village displaying very different characteristics from any we have known in the past. • In this new world of accelerated change and greater interdependence, decision makers will have to involve themselves intimately with the specifics of economic and social life in their countries – that is, they will have to focus on the trees rather than maintain an overall view of the forest, as they have done in the past. These two features will lead to the emergence of a new breed of politicians. The challenges posed by an open world in which trade competition will become ever more intense, call for leaders who are in effect executive managers not politicians in the traditional sense of the word. A politician will need more than judiciousness and level-headedness in the new set-up. To be successful and effective, he will need to have a broad grasp of many areas of public life, paralleling the managerial talents of top chief executive officers. Singapore's' Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who, in just under 30 years, transformed his country from a stereotypically poor and underdeveloped Southeast Asian state into an outstanding success story should serve as an example for leaders hoping to give their countries an edge in a fiercely competitive world. Heggy is the 2008 winner of Italy's top prize for literature “Grinzane Cavour.” http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Heggy http://www.tarek-heggy.com
