Aversion of state ownership

Perhaps most of us associate state ownership with corruption, nepotism and inefficiency. This view stems from our limited experience of nationalisation, which stalled our economy for the longest time. Hence, we tend to take a very negative stance towards state owned enterprises.

The late seventies and early eighties were years when, “Thatcherism” was popularised. The British Conservative Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who served as Prime minister of Britain from 1979 to 1990, gave economic and political philosophy, whose underlying basis was the advocacy of privatisation of nationally owned industries and businesses. She remained to carry this thought consistently, as the Conservative Party leader from 1975 to 1990.

The three economic models that operated then were capitalism (free enterprise and free markets); socialism (controlled economy with most assets being under state control) and then there was an amalgam of these two extreme thoughts, referred to as, “mixed economy”.

Socialist economic model was a fad of the decades of the sixties and seventies, therefore in fairness, no wonder that the populist leader, Z.A.Bhutto, sold to the masses the concept of ‘each according to his/her needs, instead of ‘each according to his/her abilities’. Soon after assumption of power/office in 1971, December, ZAB undertook the step of nationalisation of key industries.

But to remain judicious in evaluation of this strategy, it needs to be contextualised and appreciated, that ZAB did not pollute the business environment with corruptive practices or by way of mass political appointments or by influence upon the financial institutions to grant political loans. Only professionals were selected to run the state-owned financial institutions. The malaise, deterioration and corruption took roots during the Zia years.

The general exploited religion in the economic context too, like no rightist party had done ever before and simultaneously, taking advantage of nationalised institutions resulting from ZAB’s leftist economic policies, brazenly political appointments were made, that gave impetus to nepotism and incompetence. A disease that we haven’t been able to rid ourselves and it continues to haunt us even today.

Towards the end of the decade of the eighties, the world witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and this was followed in quick succession, with the undoing of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).

Alongside, the world was opening up to libertarianism that provoked the maximisation of autonomy, political freedom, promotion of equality in the context of law, civil rights, encompassing freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and choice. Libertarianism doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a right-wing doctrine; what belies such opinion is the fact that at least on two essential elements, firstly in relation to social issues, libertarianism tends to be more ‘left wing’ and on the other side of this spectrum of thought, libertarianism is not up against either the socialist ideology.

Mikhail Gorbachev who initiated the openness of the USSR, fell victim to his own concepts of Glasnost and Perestroika. The latter was a political and economic reform movement within both the Communist Party of USSR and the state of USSR; while the earlier, that is Glasnost, meant, ‘transparency’ in policy reforms. The idea to give to the masses firstly to discuss publicly the problems, issues and weaknesses of their political systems created social chaos. Ignoring economic reform was a critical mistake of Gorbachev.

Glasnost took precedence over Perestroika and hence what emerged was both political and economic turmoil. Openness, without tools of harness attending to it, gives birth to revolutionary and radical responses. Consequently, the protests on the streets of Moscow, coupled with the long queues of people waiting to get a loaf of bread, became unmanageable.