I am an econ-idiot. How is the Saweris group not a family business? Is it traded publicly? How many percent of the stock is owned by Sawaris himself?

Also I like how he is marketing the fact that he is Christian as part of the whole point. It's beyond weird. I mean, he's not like religious or anything. Or that his being Christian means anything as opposed to another powerful magnate being Muslim.

Once I read this book about various important players in Egypt in the period following Sadat (called "After Sadat") - Christopher Hitchens gave it to my husband as a Christmas present - how's taht for a great anecdote... anyhow one of those power players was the family that owns the Arab contractors - Osman Ahmed Osman - and it is just funny how people treat these big powerful and very corrupt families as somehow being the force for democracy in the region. I mean, just surreal.

Parts of the empire are publicly listed, so in his mind he no doubt feels it is different than the purely closely held family groups.

However, given my knowledge of the group's corporate governance, the family retains effective control. The minority shareholders are along for the ride.

This was precisely why I found the spin so entertaining. It's great marketing to the West, though. I am sure he was laying the groundwork for future efforts (and backstopping against blowback from his Iraqi endeavours).

I once read about corruption in the Republic of South Vietnam, it was...breathtaking. Taking money for providing artillery support, for example. The graft was systematized, since everybody were obliged to bribe their superiors with the bribes from their inferiors. The really corrupt, however, took more than needed.

Though slightly irrelevant to the topic, the question is: Is there such a system in place in MENA? Or are bribes in connection to doing business not that systematized or frequent, or even necessary?

A typical character in our business in middle income companies - the Big Guy. (See Shinawatra in Thailand, Li Ka-Shing in HK)

I find it hard not to share your cynicism.

On the other hand, it's all relative when it comes to emerging markets tycoons. In Latin America there's been a real change in the character of a number of the big family groups as a new generation takes the helm with a much broader vision of being players in a regional/global market rather than just the local market they already dominate. They're far more open to product and market innovations. And to outside funding and accepting a few of the constraints that entails.

They're also more sensitive to long-run "reputation as an asset" that has to be regularly renewed, and that's only partly accomplished with spin. In contrast, the old family-capital approach to reputation is paternalistic -- "we're wonderful because we're rich and powerful, and any criticisms are lese majeste."

You see a similar distinction in the FSU -- the best of the new businesses compete -- in part -- on reputation. They don't have the old Soviet mentality that "just because I'm big and have all the right connections I deserve to be successful and free of criticism." Even among Russia's oligarchs -- the more successful were the ones who took the long view of building a reputable business and not just grabbing all the assets they could strip and run with them -- that is, they grabbed but also invested and paid a lot of attention to building relationships that involve a modicum of trust. One of my worries with the asset grab currently underway by the state bureaucrats under Putin is that some of the old Soviet mentality is rearing its ugly head again. A shame, that, if we start seeing the old "red managers" sort of behavior.

In LatAm, are the new generation still family-dominated businesses? Yep, but with a bit more transparency and accountability. Are they still inveterate rent-seekers? Of course - but they now are less likely to be focused on just sewing up the local market. Are they likely to engage in some sharp practices? You betcha. But in emerging markets the "new mentality" family types are probably less corrupt than most "self-made" nouveau tycoons or (the few) corporate managers who succeed in turning their CEO position into a legacy.

So back to Sawiris -- I tend to see guys like him as representing some potential positive factors, and I'd rather hear them openly advocating a new value set even if it's mostly puffery. But of course take their spin with the proverbial grain (especially if they're Venezuelan elites who talk a great game but...).

Naguib Sawiris has been touting this idea since 2004. The Egyptian government, for now, doesn't like it.

Judging how bland the Orascom-sponsored "Inside the Middle East" on CNN is, I doubt his TV station would be that different. But then again even TV stations owned by business moguls close to the regime, like Ahmed Bahgat's Dream or Emad Adib's Orbit (which is mostly Saudi-funded, though), have had interesting shows that push the limits. Al Qahira Al Youm or Orbit is a very popular political talk show, while Hala Sarhan's show on Dream (and before that, radical anti-regime Al Destour editor Ibrahim Eissa's show, which was dropped under pressure) did raise a lot of critical issues. (Sarhan famously did shows about homosexuality and masturbation.) Any business mogul worthy of the name will want to attract a large viewership and have provocative shows, since that's what bring the masses. It's much better than state TV, even if it's not Kifaya TV (and how boring would that be?) After all, I don't expect CBS, NBC or ABC in the US to do anything very politically transgressive. So why expect an Arab channel to do so?