I rejoice when Egypt succeeds. I rejoice when a public service improves, when a citizen finds an opportunity, and when an institution succeeds in fulfilling its responsibilities. I believe that acknowledging achievements gives society confidence in its ability to move forward and gives those who work hard the recognition they deserve.
By the same principle, I criticize when I see shortcomings, and I raise questions when I believe a decision needs reconsideration. The very same concern that leads me to appreciate success is what makes me worry about mistakes: the interests of this country and the future of its people.
Recently, I have heard from various circles that I have become an increasingly harsh critic. I take this description seriously. Anyone who asks others to reconsider their positions must also be willing to examine their own. So I ask myself: Have my words become too strong? Have I failed to provide context that should have been clarified? Have I expressed my concerns in a way that obscured my intentions?
These are legitimate questions, and I welcome discussing them. In return, I hope my positions will be read in their entirety, and that the substance of an opinion will be discussed alongside its tone. Taking criticism out of context may conceal the appreciation that preceded it and turn a balanced position into an image that does not accurately represent the person expressing it.
I have repeatedly stated that building infrastructure is fundamental to economic growth, and that the government’s efforts in this area deserve recognition and appreciation. An economy needs roads, ports, energy, utilities, and telecommunications networks that enable it to operate and expand. However, appreciating these efforts does not preclude questioning the efficiency of spending, the prioritization of projects, their expected returns, and the cost of financing them. It also requires making information available so that society can evaluate what has been achieved and understand what is being planned. Public money is a responsibility, and transparency strengthens confidence in how it is managed.
I commend the Ministry of Finance for its effective efforts to develop the tax system, and I appreciate the work and perseverance required for institutional reform. At the same time, I criticize the disregard for reports issued by state-approved auditors, the arbitrary assessments made by some tax officials, and the practices of certain customs authorities at airports and seaports when I believe they require review. Appreciating reform in one area does not mean granting every practice within the ministry or its affiliated agencies the same approval. Every policy has consequences, and every practice has an impact. Fairness requires us to distinguish between them.
I commend the Ministers of Higher Education and Education for their efforts, and I recognize the difficulty of the responsibilities they carry. However, this does not prevent me from objecting to the idea that Egypt’s education problem is confined to private schools, which account for no more than 10% of all schools, while international schools represent only 1% of private schools. Meanwhile, little attention is given to the 63,000 schools owned and operated by the state.
I also object to the Ministry of Awqaf’s involvement in education before the age of six through the traditional kuttab system, whose educational philosophy I do not consider suitable for preparing children for the future, despite the fact that it may have certain merits.
Early childhood is a formative stage for developing language, imagination, curiosity, the ability to ask questions, and the capacity to interact with others. For this reason, I believe early education must be guided by an educational philosophy that responds to children’s needs and the demands of their time. Any initiative should be evaluated according to its contribution to this development. My objection here concerns educational philosophy and institutional jurisdiction. It is an objection I put forward for discussion, and I take responsibility for it.
In economics, I understand that countries around the world borrow to finance development, and that governments must spend on essential areas that the private sector may be unwilling or unable to finance on its own. Therefore, any discussion of borrowing must consider its purpose, cost, expected return, and the country’s ability to repay it.
However, I criticize the state’s involvement in private-sector activities through multiple government agencies, and the resulting contraction of the private sector’s role, despite the government’s declared intention to expand private-sector participation. We have every right to ask about the gap between declared policy and actual practice, as well as the conditions of competition and equality of opportunity. Successful economic policy requires consistency between decisions, clearly defined roles, and investor confidence in the rules governing the business environment.
Another example is my position on the Universal Health Insurance System, which I have described as a positive step. I believe that appreciating this direction requires us to pay attention to how it translates into people’s everyday lives: Is healthcare reaching everyone? Can families afford its cost?
However, health insurance is a mechanism for ensuring sustainable financing; it does not, in itself, guarantee improved efficiency or quality of healthcare services. Does the citizen receive good-quality care at the right time? These questions help us complete the project and achieve its intended purpose.
I present these examples because I hope they clarify the standard I strive to uphold: giving credit where it is due, evaluating policies according to their results, and examining practices in terms of their impact on citizens. I may support a policy direction while objecting to the way it is implemented, or commend an institution’s performance while criticizing a decision it has made. This is consistency with a single standard, even when judgments differ from one issue to another.
My medical profession has taught me that accurate diagnosis is essential to treatment. A responsible physician explains what they observe, acknowledges improvements, draws attention to what requires intervention, and revises their diagnosis when new evidence emerges. I have carried this approach into my engagement with public affairs: to research, compare, seek to understand the underlying causes, and then propose what I believe to be the better course of action.
In education, my involvement in public affairs has gone beyond commentary. I participated in developing visions and policies, and worked through civil society organizations to improve schools and support teachers. These experiences have taught me how difficult implementation can be, and I appreciate the efforts of officials, teachers, and everyone working under challenging conditions. For this very reason, I believe that respecting their efforts requires evaluating outcomes, identifying what has succeeded so that it can be expanded, and understanding the causes of what has fallen short so that they can be addressed.
When I advocate decentralization and criticize the failure to respect constitutional obligations, I am seeking administration that is closer to citizens and creates opportunities for new leaders to emerge and assume responsibility. When I insist on upholding the Constitution and the separation of powers, I am defending rules that provide institutional stability, clarify responsibilities, and protect rights.
These are positions I put forward for discussion, and I accept that I may be wrong about some of them. I expect those who disagree with me to explain where I am mistaken. Information I did not previously know, or an argument I had overlooked, may convince me. But reducing someone who expresses an opinion to a fixed label closes the door to dialogue before it even begins.
I recognize that public officials sometimes see constraints that writers do not, and face pressures that are not fully visible to the public. Fairness requires us to listen to their explanations of these constraints. At the same time, citizens may see the consequences of a decision that never reach the official’s office, while researchers may identify outcomes that were overlooked during implementation. These different perspectives complement one another, allowing knowledge to grow and decisions to improve.
Therefore, I hold myself responsible for accuracy, respect for individuals, and distinguishing facts from my own interpretations of them. I also believe that those who receive criticism have a responsibility to listen, respond with information, and allow room for correction. Fairness is a shared responsibility: acknowledging what has been achieved while taking seriously what still needs to be improved.
I have written before: “Criticize, but do not insult. Offer alternatives, not judgments.” I remain committed to this principle, while firmly believing that citizens have the right to ask questions even when they do not have a complete solution. An honest question may be the first step toward finding one.
I do not measure a writer’s balance by counting the number of words of praise against the number of words of criticism. I measure it by the integrity of their standards, the accuracy of their information, and their willingness to acknowledge outcomes that contradict their expectations. If a policy I previously opposed succeeds, I must give it credit. If a policy I supported falters, I must reconsider my position. Loyalty to the public interest demands this flexibility and integrity.
I write because I still believe that Egypt has the ability to succeed, and that its future deserves our efforts, experience, and responsible differences of opinion. I will continue to recognize success, question shortcomings, seek alternatives, and examine my own positions. This is the form of civic participation I can offer my country, and I hope it will be of benefit.
