While all that is fine, is this a good idea? Why is our government selling off strategic entities on the grounds that they are making losses? By doing so, the government is once again abdicating its responsibilities to its people – those who have elected it into office.
Our privatization experience so far has not been good. We have seen entities bought by the private sector stripped bare of their assets and then sold off. In other instances, services that such entities offered were stopped despite earlier commitments to the government that this would not happen.
As we move into yet another round of bargain sales, there are a number of questions we need to ask. Transport – whether on ground or in the air, is a basic responsibility of state. What we see, however, is that there is no public transport on the roads (except in the princely state of Lahore) in most parts of Pakistan, that the railways have been bled to a near breakdown stage and that the national airline has also been driven into the ground through corruption and mismanagement.
If you look at it, it’s a never ending cycle: a government comes into power and stuffs its party faithful into state enterprises. The Peoples Party is notorious for doing that. PIA has one of the highest employee to aircraft ratios anywhere in the world. Not only are these people a burden in terms of their numbers but are also incompetent and corrupt. They bleed the entity in more ways than one.
No wonder that profitable enterprises become loss-making. Following this, the government subsidizes them. All this drama takes place at state (read: taxpayer) expense. The final stage is that the government then decides to sell these organizations on the grounds that they are a burden to the taxpayer.
Before we agree to this fraud again, let us ask some questions. For example, why are these entities a burden? Can we take account of who stuffed how many of their faithful into these enterprises and at what cost? Can we not make them profitable without selling them?
We also need to know what we did with the money that we received as privatization proceeds. How much went into loan-repayment (this was what we were told the money would be used for). Are we richer or poorer after selling our family silver?
Then comes our other challenge: in a privatized playing field, the government ensures independent regulatory bodies. How many of our present regulators fit that bill? Today, our regulators are pushed around by the government in power for their own objectives. And almost none of these bodies have industry representation.
As a result, some of the privatized entities are more powerful than the regulators. This results in monopolistic practices and also a lack of a level playing field. We see that in many sectors in Pakistan. This begs us to ask who would benefit from this new bout of privatization if the regulatory framework remains the way it is?
Finally, what are the lessons we have learnt from the past? We were told that newly privatized entities are better run. What we see is that strategic but non-profitable services have been shut down in many sectors. And if the example of one of the largest banks of Pakistan, which was sold off some years back is anything to go by, then we are better off with the government-owned institutions.
This particular bank, who we will not name, has overcharged me several times – in one instance charging me the same car installment loan twice and in another levying charges on a credit card I never had. Service is so poor that promises made to reverse charges are not honored, one has to struggle to use its highly publicized internet-based services because they simple don’t work and officials almost never help. This bank belongs to the Soviet era. Ironically, it was much better with its basic services when government owned.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 13th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Nationalisation was done to reduce industrialists growing powers by feduals turned politicians who used the units for grabbing lucarative posts and minting money for buying votes. Democaracy became a farce and these nationalised unuts were fleeced...the present state of affairs is the outcome. Let the Governments assure law and order and civic amenities...businesses aare left to operate with light handed regulations..you may call it privatisation.strong text
MCB ?
@Sharjeel: Thanks for the response..............but I have not interchanged them. Kindly read my comment again.
@Parvez: Government is a set of people who govern. State is a national territory that include welfare, sovereignty, security for its people. And to give these to public it needs institutions that can work for the benefit of the country. Please do not interchange them.
I agree with Mr. Kamal Siddiqui, money (read paper currency) can be devaluated while having assets is another. Government should use it's brain (read advisers) and take brainy steps so that the snakes get killed but the stick doesn't break.
Now, Can anyone tell me the name of that BANK?
@Nadir: The concerns of the author in the article are valid! All public services are the responsibility of the people who are represented by their elected Government.It is also true that privatisation is market oriented, aim for efficiency and a good return on invested resource. In specific cases therefore it is prudent to have private shareholding as long as the Government retains major share of the project.
Rex Minor
Privatization keeps the focus on self sustainment and profit generation, something which governments are not good at.
Private enterprise regulates itself. I say privatize.
Can not really agree with you on this. A government should never be in the business of running a business, its basically wrong. A wrong has to be corrected, even if the process is fraught with problems because the end result will be better for the country's economy and even the public.