“State of the Project or State of the Citizen?” is not a slogan; it is a key to understanding what is happening in many contemporary states, including Egypt. I researched this question in an attempt to understand calmly and with intellectual depth.
The State of the Citizen
The “state of the citizen” is the classical model of the modern state as it emerged after the Enlightenment. Its core principles are:
-
The citizen is the foundation.
-
The state exists to protect and serve the citizen—not the other way around.
Rights precede projects.
Education, healthcare, work, and justice are not “outcomes of growth,” but foundational rights.
Legitimacy is based on: a constitution, institutions, representation, and accountability.
Its logic is that the state is a framework and the citizen is the goal; the economy is a tool to serve society.
In the state of the citizen:
-
The state regulates the market but does not dominate it.
-
It sets the rules but does not compete within them.
-
It makes mistakes, but it is held accountable.
-
It may weaken at times, but it reforms itself through political action.
This is the state of rights.
The State of the Project
The “state of the project” is a newer model that appears in countries suffering from a crisis of political legitimacy, demographic pressure, fear of chaos, or a real or imagined existential threat.
Its core logic is:
-
The project precedes the citizen.
-
Value is not in rights; legitimacy is derived from achievement, construction, and control in the name of stability.
In the state of the project, the state acts as contractor/manager, the project becomes the goal, and the citizen is a resource or a conditional beneficiary.
The state is measured by the number of roads, towers, cities, and investments—not by the quality of education, healthcare, or justice.
This is the state of power, not the state of rights.
Where Does the Danger Lie?
The danger is not in the project itself, but in its transformation into a substitute for the purpose of politics—where the social contract is replaced by an “achievement contract.”
Instead of citizens obeying the law because the government represents them, they are expected to remain silent because the government is building and delivering.
This is a fragile contract. It collapses at the first economic failure and cannot withstand prolonged crises.
When citizenship erodes, and the state shifts from “referee” to “competitor”—owning, operating, awarding contracts, and supervising itself—competition disappears, and trust vanishes.
States resort to the “project state” model for reasons that may seem realistic:
-
Fear of collapse
-
Weak parties and civil society
-
Time pressure (population, debt, expectations)
-
An administrative culture that sees politics as chaos
-
A security mindset that prefers control over negotiation
What begins as a temporary solution becomes a disaster when it turns into a permanent system.
Is the State of the Project Always a Failure?
The answer is no.
Some countries used it temporarily, such as South Korea and partially China.
But success is conditional on:
-
High efficiency
-
Strict transparency
-
A clear later transition to the state of the citizen
When the transition does not occur, the project state becomes a massive but fragile structure.
Where Does Egypt Stand?
I believe we are clearly leaning toward the state of the project, without parallel construction of accountability institutions or a new social contract.
Citizens are asked to endure and be patient—but without real tools for participation.
This is where the concern lies.
The Core Intellectual Conclusion
-
The state of the citizen says: “I am strong because you are free.”
-
The state of the project says: “You are safe because I am strong.”
History tells us something very clear:
Power without rights does not last.
A project without citizens turns into a structure without a soul.
The real question is not: Do we need projects?
But rather: Do these projects help rebuild the citizen—or replace him?
The Psychological Foundation of the Project State
The first psychological rule for understanding the project state is this:
A power that does not trust society does not negotiate with it—it manages it.
Politics, in this mindset, is not dialogue, negotiation, or representation, but risk, chaos, and potential loss of control.
Thus begins the psychological journey.
The psychological structure of authority in the project state is that of the administrative savior.
Authority sees itself as:
-
Smarter
-
More capable
-
More aware of the public interest
It forms a self-image that says:
“If things were left to the people, they would ruin everything.”
This is not necessarily individual narcissism, but institutional narcissism.
Collective self-importance is inflated, while societal capacity is devalued, accompanied by a permanent sense of functional superiority.
Even while appearing strong, authority in the project state lives in a state of internal tension, existential anxiety, and chronic fear of collapse.
As a result:
-
It accelerates execution
-
Declares that there is no time for feasibility studies
-
Accumulates projects
-
Cannot tolerate criticism
In its consciousness, criticism is not correction—it is a threat.
The Psychological Relationship Between Authority and the Project
This relationship can be summarized in three points:
-
Justification of control
“We are not controlling—you should be grateful that we are building.” -
Compensation for lack of legitimacy
When participation is absent, achievement is summoned. -
Suppression of internal anxiety
Each new project acts as a temporary psychological sedative.
That is why projects never stop—even when the economy cannot bear them or when they lack real feasibility.
The project state hates transparency for a deep psychological reason: transparency means acknowledging the possibility of error.
The project state does not see itself as “making mistakes,” but as “being accused.”
Therefore, it prefers ambiguity, leans toward mobilizing rhetoric, and confuses criticism with attack.
In the psychological analysis of the project state:
-
Politics equals conflict
-
Economics is just numbers
-
Numbers are managed, controlled, and presented without debate
Political disagreement is reframed as sabotage.
Objection becomes an implementation problem.
Crises are blamed on lack of resources—“we are a poor country.”
This provides a sense of control—even if it is illusory.
Over time, the project-state mentality spreads through the bureaucracy:
-
The employee does not ask, “Is this fair?” but “Is this required?”
-
The official does not ask, “Does this serve people?” but “Does this satisfy those above?”
The real psychological crisis begins when the state’s ability to deliver weakens, projects stall, or the economy falters.
At that point, authority loses its source of legitimacy and its psychological shield, and resorts to tightening control and blaming society through a discourse of discipline and reproach.
The likely end is mutual exhaustion.
The project state does not collapse suddenly; it exhausts itself and drains society until it loses both.
Authority does not trust the citizen, and the citizen does not feel belonging—and nothing is more dangerous than a state without mutual trust.
The Deep Psychological Conclusion
The project state is not an economic choice, but an expression of:
-
Fear of society
-
Weak legitimacy
-
Addiction to control
-
Institutional narcissism
It is a state that psychologically says:
“I work instead of you—so do not question me.”
But history says:
A state that works instead of its citizens
eventually becomes incapable of working with them.
