 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 June 2000 Issue No. 485 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 June 2000 Issue No. 485
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons A costly disease
By Salama Ahmed Salama
The Supreme Constitutional Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the new law regulating NGO activity came as a shock. To the government, the verdict was a blow, given the time and effort it had spent tailoring the law, then rushing it through the People's Assembly for rapid approval in order to circumvent civil society's response -- never mind that such action breaches the constitution. The verdict of unconstitutionality was tantamount to a declaration that the government bureaucracy, top management cadres and the legislative authority are bankrupt, having devoted themselves to cutting and pasting rather than developing a holistic philosophy of statecraft for modern times.
The court sentence calls to mind a broader issue: the management of the decision-making process with respect to megaprojects in Egypt. These projects usually arouse long-winded controversies, but, oddly enough, the research and debates never come to any conclusion as to the project's actual feasibility and sustainability. The final outcome awaits the decision of some high-ranking official or group of potential beneficiaries whose love for money drowns their conscience, or blinds them to the public interest. Years later, everybody discovers the staggering loss, the opportunities foregone and the resources wasted.
On the agenda today are two more issues of the same nature, arousing controversy and confusion and highlighting the generalised failure to discern right from wrong or private from public interest.
First is the question of partnership between Egypt and the EU. After a negotiating team spent five years forging a series of draft agreements on economic cooperation between Egypt and 15 European Union countries to guarantee a fair and equitable basis for exchanges in trade, agriculture, exports, technology transfer and a host of other areas, the terms of the partnership were again revised, modified and updated. Representatives from a myriad of ministries and organisations were involved in the negotiations and scores of meetings were held in Cairo and Brussels before the agreement was considered ready for the officials to sign. Then the government was changed. Suddenly, everyone discovered that the agreement was full of defects and loopholes, undermined Egypt's sovereignty, and made compromises equivalent to total submission. But where have all these experts been for years? Who pays the price for the hesitation that plagues decision-making in an age of rapid action?
The second issue is the Abu Tartour phosphate project, which has long been a topic of contention. For the past four years, this project has been checked and revised countless times. Billions have been poured into it, yet disagreement between experts, scientists and ministers has been so sharp and endless that the project has become an abstraction, the subject of unrealistic speculations. When I visited the project in the '80s, geologist Baheieddin Ahmed -- its head at the time, and a colleague from my student days -- confessed that it was not economically feasible, and that he had said that clearly to his superiors. Soon, however, I learned of his transfer to some other site in Sinai.
Today, there is much talk about the enormous losses incurred by the project. The public is angry with those who approved or benefited from such exorbitant investments with hardly any returns. Many are calling for their prosecution. But this is the natural outcome of a situation in which red tape is combined with corruption, and compounded by a lack of managerial skills. Combined, these ingredients suffice to perpetuate backwardness and underdevelopment. Leaving projects to drag on for years without taking firm, final decisions on crucial issues can only lead to the squandering of valuable resources.
