Of course, it would be foolish for someone to try comparing Tunisia and Portugal ;
or try comparing Egypt and Germany . It
would also be foolish to compare Germany
and Portugal ; or compare Egypt and Tunisia . Not one of these
comparisons would make sense because the history, the kind of economy and the
circumstances of each country are different from one another.
But because Tunisia
had a revolution and then Egypt
followed suit – both being fellow Arabs located on the same North African
Continent – pundits of the feather have been comparing the two countries as if
they were identical twins. The latest pundit to do so is Ishac Diwan who wrote:
“Egypt and Tunisia 's
Divergent Paths,” an article that was published on November 22, 2016 on the
website of Project Syndicate.
Actually, that article is similar to other works that came
before it except that it was updated to take into account the new developments
which took place in the recent past. The gist of the author's argument is that Tunisia 's
economy has been doing badly so far, which is understandable, he says. But that
economy is expected to do well in the future, he says, because Tunisia has
adopted the correct political posture, he goes on to say. As to Egypt 's economy, it has been doing badly, and
promises to do even worse in the future because Egypt has adopted the incorrect
political posture, he asserts.
Ishac Diwan uses the word “both” six times to make the
comparison. (1) Both countries suffer from low growth, large deficits, high
unemployment, and rising public debt. (2) Both turned to the IMF for a loan.
(3) Both showed lack of interest in economic reform. (4) Both increased public
spending. (5) Instability in both countries impeded growth. (6) Falling tourism
in both countries caused the current-account deficit to widen.
Baffled by these similarities, you wonder if Diwan points to
any sign at all that promises Tunisia 's
economy will do well in the future whereas Egypt 's economy will do badly. But
all you find is more comparisons. Here is one: Egypt
reduced its subsidies but they still remain above 10%, whereas Tunisia raised
the wages of civil-servants from 10% of GDP to 15%. Oh! Oh! Oh, wait a minute.
Stop here and look at that! It says Egypt reduced the subsidies and Tunisia raised
the wages. This says … no, this screams … that Egypt
should do well in the future whereas Tunisia should do badly. But how
come Diwan reaches the opposite conclusion? Aha, my friend aha! Don't you know?
The magic is in the use of the language.
Look and learn, my friend, look what the author did and
learn from it: “In Egypt ,
subsidies were still above 10% of GDP, suggesting a return to the old
authoritarian bargain whereby citizens abstain from political participation in
exchange for government economic support”.
Did you catch the intellectual dishonesty in that passage?
The use of the word “still” means that the subsidies in Egypt were
higher than 10%, and were brought down to that level. That is, Egypt broke
with its past and changed direction. But what does Diwan say? He says the move
signals a return to the old authoritarian bargain. What? Logic says that when
you break with the past you do not return to the old … and yet, this is what
the author wants us to believe. We cannot escape the moral of the story: it is
that Ishac Diwan has exposed himself as a shameless pathological liar with a
hidden agenda of his own that remains obscure.
Now that you know the writer is relying on language to tell
falsehoods that are difficult to spot, you look for key words that point to
more lies, and dismiss them. Here is one: “Egypt has disastrously mismanaged
its exchange rate.” And another one: “The Egyptian and Tunisian people are
dissatisfied. Over time, this frustration will help Tunisia 's
economy, while hurting Egypt 's.”
To the trashcan they both go.
One question remains to be answered: Where is the proof that
Ishac Diwan is dangerously off the mark?
Answer: It is in the fact that he and his likes were forced
to change the song they used to sing. They now sing the economic song instead
of the one they discarded. They used to say that “repression” in Egypt is causing young Egyptians to run away and
join movements like al-Qaeda and ISIS . By the
same token, it also meant that the non-repressive regime of Tunisia did not
produce jihadis.
But the truth came out. It says that on a per capita basis, Egypt produces almost no jihadis, whereas Tunisia
produces the largest number of jihadis.