Let us take the example of the telecomms sector before we now go on.
The telecoms sector unlike the power sector is one in which liberalisation can be done with utmost speed. It is a sector in which current technology renders heavy investment in fixed capital of distribution networks redundant.
What has Brother Aremu done in the past one year ?
He has reduced the cost of getting Nitel Lines twice and Nitel lines are still unavailable. Not that the issue is Nitel lines being available, it is about deregulation and competition through additional service suppliers.
To summarise, I want to prove you wrong in that I am not against capitalism and the profit motive per se.
My views are that what is so difficult in selling two or three refineries that this hasn't been achieved in one year ?
What is difficult in actualising the objective of deregulating telecoms in one year?
The results today clearly indicate that Bro. Aremu still belongs to the group of those who want to see monopoly perpetuated. While the reasons for perpetuating monopoly was quite clear in previous administrations, why is Bro. Aremu behaving this way ?
So has there been any change in one year besides "taking the sting out of the military" as many people claim is the worthwhile achievement of his.
I repeat that if he feels he cannot do beyond that, then he should resign and let someone else carry on. Indeed he should not hinder those in the legislature who have genuine intentions to serve.
We seem to be jointly agreed to the transformational impact of these public goods on society ie. the service delivery of education, information, entertainment etc through electricity. I doubt whether these guys understand it and that is why I have personally classisfied Bro. Aremu amongst the has beens.
Does he understand the hinderance of these monopolies to the very work he is touting himself to stand for ? ie. poverty alleviation ?
Now for the punchline.
I am glad that Dr. O has supplied references to the effect that the US, the great example of the success of capitalism also subsidises the delivery of their public goods for the benefit of its citizens.
However, let me supply additional academic references that illustrate that it is
not privatisation per se which ensures competitive service delivery, rather, it is the co-existence of service providers with different ownership structures in the same market.
- Power supply
Primeaux (1977) found in a study carried out on private and municipally owned electric utilities of similar sizes and operating in the same markets that average costs and were at par.
- Railroads
Caves and Christensen (1980) in comparing the publicly owned Canadian
National Railroad and the privately owned Canadian Pacific Railroad and
using freight ton miles and passenger miles as their indices of
comparisson also concluded that publicly ownership does not inherently
confer less efficiency than private ownership.
- Aviation
Davies (1971 and 1977) in comparing two Australian Airlines, the privately owned Ansett Australian National Airlines and the publicly owned Trans Australian Airlines using indices of tons of freight per employee, revenue per employee and passenger miles per employee also came to this conclusion.
Thus efficiency actually needs to be defined as economic, productive or technical effeiciency.
So wither our own dogged focus on privatisation as the solution to what has been plain roguery and thievery ?
Now that the Northern economies have achieved a basic standard of livelihood having gone through their own periods of social welfarism and government protectionism, is it fair to demand that technical effeiciency be the only criterion of evaluation ?
My point therefore is about the fruits of Bro. Aremu's leadership and not his copycat mouthing of what has now become labelled all over the world as the Washington agenda. ie. Structural Adjustment and Trade Liberalisation. That by the way is what Jeffery Sachs argues. He is on our side on this one.
He is a Harvard Economist who has been saying for years that the playing field is not that parallel enough for the North and the Third World to play on the same terms especially when the terms by said SAP policies are drawn up by twenty something year old MBAs, wet behind the ears who have never even seen the countries they give directives about ! To crown it all he contributes the impact of the environment on our slow progress, pathogens, malaria etc.
Let us make that the subject of another debate.
So why is Bro. Aremu's focussed wavering from service to his citizens?
This is the critical issue that said citizens tacitly stated in the June 1-13 fuel price increase issue. His dubious fuel subsidy economics is bogus to say the least... and then he comes out to try and back it up with a cock and bull story about the refineries.
Probably it is an example that well illustrates the fact that these guys were not so much voted in but that we all heaved a sigh of relief that the uniformed guys were out.
And don't deceive yourself the guys were not voted in. Be that as it may anyway, we are prepared to accept that we have to start somewhere and that is why we are saying that Bro. Aremu should be conscious of the fact that he is now the standard point.
What a poor standard point he is turning out to be.
At the rate he is going even day students who have no opportunity to practise will make all their standard points. And where would that leave us ?
You say you want do am, oya you don do am, you better pass the people wey dey there before ?
The stance of a leader I believe is to position himself at the other end where his subjects are and work policies from bottom up.
This is a very subtle example that seems to elude us and which makes people ask "Isn't this the son of omo lagbaja who used to eat akara with us ?' How do they forget the problems so easily. This at least is a well used Clinton technique which he uses in his state of the nation white washing speeches when he brings in Jane Doe from the boondocks and is able to illustrate how during his tenure she has been able to move from her
trailer home into a nice appartment and now has some dough in the kitty that she can take a holiday in Vegas and have fun at the pinball machines (airhead she is). Anyway, you get the drift.
What has Iya Aremu in igbo elerin be able to say after one year ?
You think there was any difference between the military and the now for her? That is what I mean by a bottom up policy.
Let's get back to telecoms for example :
By the time the governement came out with what would be its white paper on the way forward in this industry, it was such common knowledge that they sought to retain monopoly through Nitel that the Australian High Commissioner wrote in The Guardian reminding the governement that there were some citizens who had privately invested to the tune of $1.0m in NIgeria anticipating the much spoken about liberalisation. So much talk and no action !!!
This is why I firmly believe that the issue is one of leadership.
You inadvertently admit this when you allude to the fact that Bro. Aremu is surrounded by goons. But I am sure that he knows well enough not to put his hand in the fire even if his goons say that is the next him for him to do.
Leadership is about focussing on the opportunity losses of NOT having electricity, or phones that work, good roads, or rail networks etc.
Leadership is NOT about focusing upon the financial benefits that said parastatals representing the above cited services can generate for subsequent disbursement (to whom may I ask ?)
One view represents a developmental view of remembering that the Iya Aremus in the villages represent a larger proportion of the population than we who have access to laptops and e-tech and as such policies must be designed to include them and not exclude them as is the one-way prescription of the Washington agenda.
The other views represents the Thatcherite stance which has lead the UK in its loss of manufacturing competiutiveness by selling the crown jewels to their tory cronies.
Let me give you an opportunity to respond to the above. As you can see government to me is not about who is where or whom or how he got there. But about how public goods by their economic definition are made available for the majority of citizens by the set of people authorised to do so - Government.
Guides
