Introduction
Digital and information technology development has gone through multiple stages since the middle of the last century. In its early stages, work in these fields was largely confined to academic research conducted by scientists, engineers, and other experts within university laboratories and scientific institutions.
Practical applications of these technologies began to emerge in the market in the late 1970s but on a limited scale. However, the expansion of the use of digital and information technology received a strong boost in the 1990s. This boost was driven by two main phenomena: the development of personal desktop computers in the late 1980s and the emergence of the Internet for public use with the advent of the web.
Since then, the use of digital and information technology has expanded exponentially across all aspects of daily life for individuals, public institutions, and private enterprises. This growth has led to the emergence of numerous specialized fields to meet the demand for technological products and services.
Most of these specialized fields initially emerged from existing scientific and professional ones, foremost among them is communication engineering. The expansion of related applications and the accumulation of knowledge and experience led to the independence and growth of precise specialized fields, each related to a specific area of practical application of digital technology or information technology.
Many of these specialized fields started to have independent departments in university colleges, qualifying their graduates to work professionally in each area. However, many tasks and jobs in digital and information technology still rely on practitioners who are not graduates of these specialized colleges and departments. These individuals come from related fields or acquire the necessary education and training through various means, including accumulating experience and knowledge through actual job practice.
In light of the ongoing demand for services from those with knowledge and skills in the fields of technology, a situation arises that lacks the necessary balance between two aspects:
- First, ensure a minimum acceptable level of professional practice in these fields, serve the interests of those receiving services from practitioners, and foster the growth and development of related industries to contribute to overall economic and social development.
- Second, provide guarantees and means of protection for the rights of practitioners in these specialized fields.
In response to this situation, the Egyptian government, through the Ministry of Higher Education (rather than the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology), prepared a law to establish a professional syndicate for technologists. The presentation and discussion of this law in the Egyptian Parliament were delayed for several years before it was finally approved and then ratified by the President in February 2024.
This paper seeks to provide a critical reading of the law establishing a professional syndicate for technologists. It clarifies the reasons for the need for a syndicate for technologists and for legal and institutional regulatory frameworks for practicing technological professions.
The paper also reviews the structure and philosophy of the law, along with some of its most important provisions, and offers a critique of the law by highlighting the main problematic issues within its articles. Finally, the paper presents a set of recommendations for amendments to the law to achieve the goals that necessitated its issuance in the first place.
The Need for a Syndicate for Technologists
Legal and institutional frameworks for professional technology practice are needed for two main reasons. First, they protect both the people doing the tech work and those benefiting from it. Second, they ensure that these technologies are used in the best way possible to help society and the economy grow.
There are different approaches to achieving these two objectives. These approaches are reflected in the nature of the regulatory frameworks, whether legal or institutional, that can be established to achieve either of the objectives or both together.
In the Egyptian context, most of the means used to achieve these objectives are integrated within an institutional framework. This framework is the professional syndicate, whose establishment, membership conditions, and operations are regulated by specific legislation approved by the legislative authority and overseen by the executive authority within the limits established by law.
The next section of the paper discusses the reasons for the need for legal and institutional regulatory frameworks for digital and information technology professional disciplines. In the traditional Egyptian context, these reasons highlight the need to establish a professional syndicate for technologists. However, this is not necessarily considered the optimal approach, which the paper will discuss in the context of its critique of the law establishing the technologists’ syndicate.
Reasons for the Need for Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Practicing Technological Professions
Egypt’s information and communications technology (ICT) sector has grown significantly in recent years. Over time, the sector has become one of the most influential economic sectors regarding the overall growth rates of the Egyptian economy.
According to statistics published at the beginning of 2022, it was also the fastest-growing sector among Egypt’s economic sectors. The sector’s growth rate for that year reached 16.7%, and its contribution to the total gross domestic product (GDP) was approximately 150 billion Egyptian pounds, accounting for 5%. Additionally, the sector’s exports amounted to about 4.9 billion dollars.
According to press reports, the number of workers in the sector rose to approximately 281,000 by the end of 2021. With their various specializations, technologists are considered the backbone of this sector and represent most of its workforce.
As the sector’s significance to the Egyptian economy grows, so does the need for regulations to ensure consistent quality in its outputs. This can be achieved through measures that guarantee a satisfactory minimum level of knowledge, skills, and experience among specialized workers in technological professions. To achieve this, legal and institutional frameworks must be established to set specific standards and ensure that workers in related jobs possess the necessary qualifications to carry out their roles effectively.
On the other hand, the proportion of available jobs in the ICT sector is increasing compared to other sectors. Consequently, its attractiveness for those entering the labor market annually is growing. The growth in the number of workers in this sector means they represent a larger percentage of the overall workforce. This increasing demand for jobs in the sector leads to a continuous adjustment of the demand ratio for new workers compared to the actual jobs the sector needs.
This is reflected in the following:
- A decline in the average wage for specialized jobs in the sector.
- Reduction of job benefits.
- Decrease in the percentage of permanent employment compared to temporary employment.
- A decline in the proportion of secure jobs in the sector.
The State of Technologists in the Absence of a Syndicate
The absence of regulatory, legal, and institutional frameworks for practicing technological professions adversely affects technologists’ conditions in several key ways:
- Professional Practice Chaos:
- Lack of clarity regarding job requirements and specialization distinctions.
- Negative impact on career paths, advancement opportunities, and financial returns.
- Absence of Technologist Syndicates:
- Deprivation of the right to collectively advocate for interests, particularly in unequal employment relationships (permanent, temporary, or freelance contractual).
- Inability to access collaborative benefits and services provided by syndicates.
- Lack of Essential Guarantees:
- Limited access to social security (retirement, disability) and health insurance.
- These guarantees are particularly crucial in a profession that is shifting towards reduced permanent jobs and increased reliance on temporary contractual work that lacks guarantees or benefits.
These challenges underscore the importance of establishing comprehensive frameworks safeguarding technologists’ rights, defining clear professional standards, and providing essential guarantees.
A Reading of the Law Establishing the Technologists’ Syndicate
Preparation, Proposal, and Discussion of the Law
Preparing the law for the Technologists’ Syndicate went through several stages over the years. Press reports in February 2021 revealed that the Cabinet was preparing to send the law to the Parliament. However, the discussion and approval of the law were delayed for about three years.
The Minister of Higher Education advisor stated in press remarks, “The Ministry of Higher Education has completed the submission of the draft law for the Technologists’ Syndicate to the parliament and is awaiting the parliament’s approval of the law.”
In December 2023, the parliament approved, in principle, the draft law for establishing the Technologists’ Syndicate. It finally approved the law in its session on January 3, 2024, before the President ratified it in February 2024. Law No. 13 of 2024 was issued to establish and organize the Technologists Syndicate.
The structure and philosophy of the law
The law establishing the Technologists’ Syndicate includes 76 articles distributed across seven chapters. These chapters include the following:
- General Provisions
- Membership Conditions and Registration in the Syndicate’s Records
- Syndicate Bodies and their Operating System
- Sub-Syndicates
- Financial System of the Syndicate and the Pension and Assistance Fund
- Members’ Duties
- Disciplinary System and Penalties
The law is similar in its general structure to other laws concerned with regulating the affairs of professional syndicates. Its philosophy is based on a model of the professional syndicate that combines the organization of the practice of the profession and its licensing on one hand and the protection of the interests of its practitioners regardless of their positions in employment relationships on the other hand. This model contrasts with the nature of syndicate organizations that focus on protecting the interests of wage earners.
The law also adopts the approach used in all Egyptian professional syndicate laws. This approach links the licensing to practice the profession with membership in the syndicate. It ties this membership to the relevant educational and academic qualifications without considering the realities of actual practice and its various requirements.
In some cases, the requirements for practice may exceed what these qualifications provide, while in other cases, these qualifications may not be necessary at all; it may even be preferable to obtain different educational and training qualifications than those specified exclusively in the law.
The Most Important Provisions of the Law
Procedures for establishing a syndicate
Articles 2 to 6 of the law’s issuance articles regulate the procedures for establishing the Technologists Syndicate. Article 2 states that “the Prime Minister shall issue, based on the proposal of the Minister in charge of higher education affairs and after the approval of the cabinet, a decision to form a temporary committee of eleven members from university professors, complexes or technological colleges, with experience in the technological field, to undertake the procedures for establishing the Technologists Syndicate, including opening the door for registration and verifying the availability of the membership conditions stipulated in the law.” It is worth noting that the article did not specify a binding time frame within which the Prime Minister must issue the aforementioned decision.
Article 3 stipulates that the aforementioned committee shall start its work as soon as the decision to form it is published in the Official Gazette. The committee shall develop its own regulations that organize its method of work and the procedures for making its decisions.
It also stipulates that this committee’s tasks shall end with the election of a council for the syndicate and set a maximum period of six months from the date of the committee’s first meeting.
Membership and enrollment in the syndicate’s table and records
The articles of Chapter 2 of the law (Articles 4 to 13) regulate the conditions of membership and the procedures for enrollment in the general enrollment table and in the syndicate’s records. Article 4 specifies as the main condition for membership “a bachelor’s degree from a university, college or technological institute” or “equivalent qualifications as determined by the Supreme Council of Universities and per the syndicate’s internal regulations.”
Article 5 outlines the procedures for registration in the general enrollment table, which includes “anyone who applies for membership and meets the conditions outlined in Article 4.”
The article also provides for the establishment of tiered registers based on academic qualifications and years of practice, including:
- Register of practicing technologists.
- Register of specialized technologists.
- Register of consulting technologists.
Article 7 regulates the procedures for submitting a registration request to the relevant committee. The committee issues its decision regarding the request within thirty days of submission. It informs the applicant of this decision within fifteen days from the date it is issued.
Article 8 outlines the procedures for appealing a decision issued by the registration committee to reject an application. The Syndicate’s Council decides on this appeal within a maximum period of sixty days, and if this period elapses without a response, it is considered a rejection of the appeal.
The article also states that anyone whose appeal has been rejected by the Syndicate’s Council has the right to appeal to the Administrative Court within sixty days from the date they are notified of the decision. Furthermore, the article prohibits anyone whose application has been rejected from submitting a new request unless the reasons for the rejection have been resolved.
Article 12 stipulates the establishment of a special register for temporary permits for foreigners and foreign consulting offices. The article delegates the syndicate’s internal regulations for determining the cases, rules, procedures, duration of the temporary permit, and the prescribed fees. The fees should not exceed 20,000 Egyptian pounds for consulting offices and 10,000 Egyptian pounds for individual foreigners.
Finally, Article 13 prohibits “practicing technological activity as defined in the law” for those not registered in the syndicate’s records or without a temporary permit.
It is worth noting that the definition of technological activity in Article 1 of the law is based on the conditions of syndicate membership. This means that the law defines technological activity by the status of those who practice it rather than by the requirements or characteristics of the activity itself.
Criticism of the Technologists Syndicate Law
A critique of the concept of the professional syndicate in Egypt
The concept of professional syndicates in Egypt is based on the institutional integration of two functions that may initially appear to have no conflict or contradiction. The first function is to regulate the professional practice of one or more specialties that collectively form a profession.
This includes setting the qualifications required to practice any of the concerned specializations and granting conditional or open, permanent or temporary licenses to individuals that enable them to practice that specialization. It also includes establishing requirements and standards for the relevant specialties’ proper technical and ethical practice.
Additionally, it involves acting as a consulting body regarding any regulatory frameworks that intersect with the standards or requirements for practicing these specialties, including legislation, executive decisions, or issuing relevant standard criteria.
Finally, due to its focus on protecting proper professional conduct and licensing the practice of professional specialties, this function incorporates disciplinary responsibility and penalties for licensed professionals who violate their professional obligations. This disciplinary action is independent of any legal consequences that may arise from the breach. This function aims to ensure the integrity and accountability of professionals within their respective fields.
The second function involves defending the interests of practitioners in relevant professional fields. This entails advocating for their rights and safeguarding them from potential threats, especially when their rights are jeopardized within the context of permanent or temporary employment relationships with their employers.
This function also includes providing social guarantees in the form of solidarity pensions among practitioners of the profession, which contribute to ensuring a minimum income in cases of retirement or inability to work, as well as providing subsidized health services.
Finally, this function includes providing services to professional practitioners, some of which relate to their practice and acquiring knowledge, skills, and tools to enhance their professional development. It also encompasses support in different aspects of life, such as assisting practitioners in obtaining suitable housing, establishing social clubs, and providing various recreational opportunities for them.
The integration of the two functions mentioned above, along with what the second function encompasses within an institutional framework called the syndicate, entails several contradictions in practical application. While the second function requires that the institutional framework be limited to practitioners of the profession alone, the first function inevitably intersects with the interests of other groups.
Balancing Interests, Resolving Conflicts, and Ensuring Fairness
The regulation of the profession and its qualification requirements, including the issuance of licenses, can be seen as a form of privilege control. The value and return on this privilege are directly tied to its exclusivity and prevalence. This means that those already licensed to practice a profession have a direct interest in limiting the prevalence of this privilege.
This interest conflicts with the interests of those seeking to obtain a license to practice the profession, which pertains to ensuring that the qualification requirements are fair and objective. Additionally, it conflicts with the interests of individuals and entities receiving services from practitioners in the profession, who seek to ensure that as many licensed providers as possible are available to offer these services, as long as they are practically qualified.
Restricting the oversight of professional practice to a syndicate composed solely of practitioners creates a potential conflict of interest. This is particularly concerning when practitioners fail to meet their professional obligations, leading to disputes with beneficiaries of their services who suffer harm as a result.
The disciplinary role of the syndicate as a supervisor of professional practice conflicts with its role in protecting the interests of its members. In practice, carrying out the disciplinary role may involve suspicions of bias and favoritism towards members’ interests against others.
In its current concept within the Egyptian context, the professional syndicate lacks the qualifications to be a true syndicate entity in practical reality. A syndicate entity is necessarily concerned with representing the interests of wage earners in relation to various types of management. Specifically, it allows wage earners to support one another to balance the power dynamics of labor relations, which tend to favor management entities.
The professional syndicate does not require that individuals be wage earners to be accepted as members. Typically, the syndicate mixes its membership between individuals from both sides of labor relations, including wage earners and business owners or managers of workplaces.
The syndicate transfers the imbalanced power dynamics that favor management into its structure. This means the same power relations govern representation opportunities within the syndicate’s internal bodies and influence its operations.
However, before anything else, this mixing of membership hinders the ability to advocate for the rights of wage earners in a neutral manner, whether in individual disputes or in the need to establish rules that allow for a greater balance in labor relations.
The current version of the Technologists’ Syndicate Law allows a minority of practitioners in digital and information technology fields to monopolize the management of the institution responsible for regulating the profession, including determining who is eligible to practice it. Instead of protecting all practitioners of this profession, the law restricts it to only some of them, threatening the majority with deprivation of their legal right to practice.
The Most Important Issues in the Law
Enrollment terms and mechanism
Article 4 of the law states in its second paragraph that one of the requirements for membership in the syndicate is “to hold a bachelor’s degree from one of the universities, colleges, or technological institutes, or other holders of equivalent qualifications.” By doing so, the law overlooks the actual reality of practicing technological specialties in Egypt and worldwide.
The nature of the majority of these specialties and the requirements for practicing professional work often do not necessitate obtaining a specialized university degree. Instead, they relate to skills and experiences, some of which are cumulative, while others are variable and continually evolving due to the rapid advancement of technology.
Additionally, the vast spectrum of applications in digital and information technology leads to the emergence of job requirements that prioritize specific expertise over general academic background.
Furthermore, the intersection of technology applications with most fields of work and their various specialties often creates a need for specialists in other areas to perform technological functions and build a career path that combines their academic expertise with their technological skills.
Therefore, the law’s approach to defining the categories it covers contradicts the reality of actual professional practices in the field. The law limits these categories to individuals with specific academic qualifications without considering the practical practice requirements. This effectively excludes the vast majority of individuals already engaged in work and hold positions that fall under technological specialties.
Moreover, the law does not define technological activity, which, in Article thirteen, is prohibited “for those not registered in the syndicate’s records or who have not been issued a temporary permit.”
Article 4 of the law also states that one requirement for membership in the syndicate is that “the individual must not have been previously convicted by a final judgment or disciplinary decision for committing any acts that undermine honor or integrity unless five years have elapsed from the date of issuance of the judgment or final decision.”
This requirement is unnecessary, as the laws of other professional syndicates suffice with what is stated in the third paragraph of the same article: “that the individual must not have been previously sentenced to a felony or a penalty involving deprivation of liberty for a crime that undermines honor or integrity unless their honor has been restored.”
Article 8 of the law regulates the procedures for appealing the decision issued by the registration committee regarding the rejection of a syndicate membership application. The article states that “if sixty days pass after the appeal submission without the council responding, it shall be considered a rejection of the appeal.”
This article deviates from the prevailing norm in regulating appeal procedures or other processes where an entity must review and decide on a request. According to that norm, an entity’s failure, delay, or negligence in addressing the request within the specified timeframe is interpreted in favor of the applicant, not the other way around.
The applicant should not be harmed due to the negligence, delay, or abuse of discretion by the entity to which the request is submitted or its disregard for it. This could render the appeal process meaningless and nullify its value, thus depriving the applicant of their legal right to appeal before the relevant administrative body before resorting to the Administrative Court.
Delegating basic regulations details to the internal regulations
Article 5 of the law’s issuance articles states that “the syndicate’s general assembly shall issue the internal regulations based on a proposal from the Syndicate’s Council within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of its election.”
Typically, internal regulations focus on regulating the syndicate’s operations rather than governing its institutional framework and area of expertise. In contrast, the founding law enacted by the legislative authority should govern these aspects.
Notably, the law has delegated several regulatory options to the executive regulations that define the syndicate’s competence, thereby leaving it to determine the relationship between the syndicate and external groups, including identifying some of these groups.
In Article 4, the law delegates to the syndicate’s internal regulations, in coordination with the Supreme Council of Universities, the responsibility of determining the equivalent qualifications for the bachelor’s degree granted by universities, colleges, and technological institutes, which are required for membership in the syndicate.
Granting the syndicate itself, represented by its council and general assembly, the authority to determine who meets its membership requirements creates a conflict of interest. Membership in the syndicate automatically permits an individual to work in the relevant specialties. Thus, the members of the syndicate’s first general assembly have the opportunity to decide who can compete with them in the job market.
The law also assigns the responsibility for defining “the various branches of the technological field” to the syndicate’s internal regulations. This effectively leaves it to the internal regulations to define technological activity indirectly and imprecisely.
Given that the general assembly and council members meet the conditions set by the law for the syndicate membership, their role in determining the fields of technological activity involves a conflict of interest. This enables them to prohibit the majority of individuals currently engaged in these activities from practicing it, limiting this practice to a specific group to which they themselves belong.
Recommendations for Amendments to the Articles of the Law
The unique nature of digital and information technology necessitates a different approach to defining the requirements for practicing the relevant specialties professionally on the ground. The continuous and often unpredictable evolution of these technologies, along with the rapid pace at which they are implemented, requires flexibility in determining the qualifications needed for professional practices related to them.
In any approach to defining these qualifications, the interests of practitioners in the profession should be given the priority they deserve. While relevant academic qualifications are significant, practical reality dictates that the curricula of colleges and technological institutes tend to keep pace with the developments occurring in practice rather than vice versa.
The burden of developing this practice falls on those practically engaged in it, who are often not graduates of these colleges and institutes. Therefore, the actual job requirements are the true criterion for determining who possesses the necessary skills and updated knowledge required to practice the relevant specialties. These requirements vary significantly across specialties due to the continuous development in the field.
Establishing and continually updating these requirements should not solely rely on practitioners; rather, it necessitates the participation of various stakeholders. This includes representatives from the recipients of the services provided by practitioners, experts in the relevant specialties, and experts in intersecting specialties.
Determining the qualifications required for those licensed to practice technological specializations should not be based on academic qualifications alone. This approach not only creates an unfair disadvantage for a significant portion of current and future professionals in these fields, but it also falls short of effectively addressing the actual needs of the labor market. The skills and experiences required to practice these specializations optimally must be considered to ensure the best possible outcomes.
Therefore, it is recommended that an independent entity be established to regulate the practice of technological professions. This includes setting practical criteria for licensing the various specialties within these professions. This entity should allow representatives from various stakeholders to participate with appropriate representation to maintain a balanced approach.
The standards should consider the market’s real needs regarding knowledge, skills, and experience for each specialty. They should also consider the diversity of qualified individuals by distributing professionals into different registration records that reflect these elements.
If establishing an independent entity responsible for licensing technological professions is not feasible, it is recommended that the second paragraph of Article 4 of the law be amended. This can be done by either setting more comprehensive and realistic membership criteria that align with the required knowledge, skills, and experience for practicing the profession or by forming a committee that includes relevant external experts to establish and update these criteria.
It is also recommended that detailed articles be added covering the regulatory aspects currently delegated in the law’s text to the internal regulations. Particular attention should be paid to precisely defining the professional specializations to which the syndicate’s membership conditions apply and distributing those specializations among its various divisions.
In addition, it is recommended that the fourth paragraph of Article 4 of the law be deleted. This paragraph represents an exceptional addition compared to the membership conditions recognized under the laws of other professional syndicates. Also, these conditions are already met through the third paragraph of the same article.
It is also recommended that the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 8 of the law be amended regarding the Council of the Syndicate’s decision on appeals against the registration committee’s rejection of the membership application. The failure of the Council to address the appeal within the time frame specified by law should be interpreted in favor of the appellant.
This means that the wording of the sentence should be: “If sixty days pass after the submission of the appeal without the council responding, it shall be considered as acceptance of the appeal” rather than a rejection of it.
Conclusion
The Egyptian government’s approach to drafting the Law for the Syndicate of Technologists overlooked the specific needs of the professional specialties that the law is supposed to provide legal and institutional frameworks to regulate.
This paper highlights the significant issues with this approach, which generally prevent such syndicates from achieving their intended purpose. It also explains the unique aspects of technological professional specialties, emphasizing the necessity of a different approach to regulating their practice.
The paper offers a critical analysis of the Law for the Syndicate of Technologists, detailing the reasons for regulating technological professions and protecting technologists’ interests and rights. It outlines the law’s structure, philosophy, and key provisions before critiquing its main issues and articles.
The paper also presents recommendations for amending the approach to regulating technological professions and the law’s provisions. The aim is to emphasize the need for an approach that prioritizes technologists’ rights while balancing the interests of technological professionals with those of other stakeholders. This approach would ultimately serve the public interest by keeping pace with technological advancements and leveraging them to achieve economic and social development goals.