Blogs

Before the events of 2011, Egypt had a presidential constitutional regime with a two-chamber parliament and an independent judiciary. It allowed for a multiparty polity where competition was supposed to prevail. However, existing registered parties were perceived as ineffective at providing an alternative way. The Muslim Brotherhood operated unofficially. The then-National Democratic Party (NDP) was the leading political organization, generally towing the official line. Between 2011 and mid-2013, the transition in the country’s governance was confusing without a clear sequencing. It was, to a certain extent, chaotic.

Egypt’s governance structure and procedures have been in flux for a while. However, since mid-2013, the country has followed a road map, adopted a new constitution, elected a new president and scheduled parliamentary elections. A new public governance framework is being gradually put in place.

Table 1, provides a comparative view of governance indicators for the period pre 2013. It uses governance indicators of various national and international organizations to compare discrepancies between principles and implementation.[1] However, caution is advised when considering these indicators, as each individually may not capture the full dimensions of the aspect of governance it is supposed to measure.

Table 1: Selected Public Governance Indicators

 Source: https://agidata.org/Site/Report.aspx?report=IDA_REPORT&country=60

According to the above indicators, at the time, Egypt does not compare favorably with comparator countries in several aspects, namely: the rule of law; the extent to which state powers check and balance one another and ensure civil rights; voice and accountability; and the extent to which citizens are free to choose their government and enjoy fundamental freedoms. However, Egypt and other Middle East and North Africa countries generally fare better in how effectively the legislature, judiciary, and independent auditing and review limit government powers.

The principles of corporate governance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have become the reference point to assess and compare corporate governance practices across countries,[2] most notably in the context of the Reviews of Standards and Codes (ROSC) (IMF and World Bank 2011). A 2009 corporate governance ROSC of Egypt noted the tremendous progress achieved in organizing the governance of its listed companies. It highlights the creation of an Institute of Directors, the development of corporate governance codes for private and state enterprises, and the enforcement of features such as the establishment of board-level audit committees and the modernization of audit and accounting rules in line with international practice. However, the ROSC noted remaining weaknesses such as opaqueness of boards’ internal operations, limited disclosure of nonfinancial information, and the limited involvement of shareholders in extraordinary decisions (IMF and World Bank 2011).

Reference

• IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank. 2011. “Review of the Standards and Codes Initiative ROSC Case Studies.” IMF and World Bank, Washington, DC, February. http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2011/021611b.pdf.