|
|
|
|
| Opinion |
| My Turn |
|
by
W. F. Hill, 10 February 2006
-
06:06:54
|
Left or Right?
The political terms ‘left’ and right’ came from the Assembly seating arrangements following the French Revolution—Royalists on the right, radicals on the left. Nowadays, basically, ‘left’ implies that the State will ensure that all have security from hunger, and access to health care and education. This is financed through taxation according to means. Public services are owned by ‘the people’—the State. The ‘right’ implies that the State will give every encouragement for people to undertake private enterprise, the gains to be used for personal benefit. Very little, if anything, is in ‘public ownership’.
Many democratic countries attempt a compromise. In the UK this may be seen as the ‘liberal’ philosophy, not necessarily a party like the Liberal Democrats, but seen also in the Conservative and the Labour policies. But it may be noted that as a country or individual gets wealthier, the tendency is to move to the right. Tony Blair, Labour (‘left’) PM in the UK today is probably more to the right than was Harold Macmillan, Conservative (‘right’) PM in the 1960s.
In Malawi we hear little discussion along these lines. But in the light of present political-economic developments, it may be worth taking a closer look, to see what the position may be, and what the consequences could be.
Competition among business is theoretically good for the public, as it should produce better products and services at lower prices. This can only happen when there are several companies doing more-or-less the same thing, without collusion.
A monopoly product or service, without state control, can charge what it likes, no matter how poor the service, so long as the product is needed. If the public can do without, however, the monopoly can fail.
There are some services, however, that any city or town cannot do without. These are water and sewerage; electricity; and communications.
What happens if water is privatised—treated as a business rather than a service? Could any private company install a complete water system, independent of the present one? Not likely; so whether we call it privatisation or not any company will be at the mercy of those who are in charge of the existing facilities—who can therefore charge what they like; and this will be passed on to the consumer.
The choice is take it and pay, or die of dehydration! If the government tries to regulate, the water owners can say that increases in charges are necessary to maintain and improve the service (and improve the pay of the top executives, of course).
Similarly with electricity. In Malawi, only a minority enjoy this service. As most of the population are widely scattered rural dwellers, any attempt by a private company to service them all without making unaffordable charges would result in massive loses – bankruptcy for the company. In a capitalist society, ‘market forces’ would drive people who want electricity to move to where it is provided.
A poverty reduction scheme, for instance, Ovop where people want to start a village-based business may well need clean water and an electricity supply. But if private companies will not provide these services at a price the village can afford, the scheme cannot start.
I do not have a choice as to whether I want to break my arm or not. A private hospital is costly. State hospitals are underfunded and understaffed, as the private hospitals offer better conditions of service to prospective staff. Thus a ‘middle-of-the-road’ policy is disadvantageous to the underprivileged.
Education in Malawi is two-track—government supported, plus independent. The independent schools are very expensive, but usually produce well-educated people. The Government schools struggle.
The University of Malawi combines state-sponsored students with privately-supported ones. The University assesses its annual fees, which are a small proportion of what is required to keep running, the balance coming from government. At present this University just survives. Any academic development it tries to undertake has to be supported from donor aid.
The University is being pressed to become much more financially self-supporting. To do this it will have to increase its fees very substantially. The government may then be unwilling to wholly support each ‘government-sponsored’ student. The consequence will be that only those who have rich parents or guardians will be able to go to University.
In general, but not always, the well-educated have a better chance of earning a good income than those not so fortunate. If the University becomes more ‘privatised’, the national tendency for the rich to become richer while the poor get poorer will accelerate. Thus, emerges a government policy: capitalism at its most virulent.
Forget the odious self-serving sop to conscience often expressed by the rich, that a ‘trickle-down effect’ will enrich the poor also. It doesn’t happen. The last 10 years in Malawi has seen the great enrichment of a few people (including prominent politicians) while all indices show that the population as a whole has got poorer. In the US, the ‘richest’ country in the world, 12 percent of the population live in poverty, and that figure appears to be rising.
The ‘poverty trap’ is real. As the cost of education, health and other services increase, the poorest have less and less access, so get poorer and sicker.
Unfortunately, it is usually only the wealthy, especially the top politicians that can reverse this. And they show little inclination to do so.
On the contrary, it may be noted that in both the public and private sector, when pay rises come along, it is commonly the top people that get the highest percentage increase, and the lowest that get the smallest percentage increase, thus widening the poverty gap further.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the individuals leading various political parties, mindful of their own mostly very healthy financial status, are reluctant to state whether they are ‘right’, ‘left’ or ‘centre’!
—The author is Professor of Architecture at the Polytechnic, Blantyre.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
