Here & Now: Breaking the pattern

The latest row over government plans to give shares away in public companies leaves Assem El-Kersh with a sense of déjà vu

---

We've heard it all before, the vehement arguments for and against, accusations hurtling back and forth, doubts and suspicions hovering endlessly, the same unruly passions over what is and is not in the best interests of the nation. This time the furore was triggered by the government's surprise decision to hand shares in government owned companies to Egyptian citizens free-of-charge.

The most common insinuation lurking beneath the surface of the plethora of commentaries that accompanied the unprecedented move is that there is something fishy in the scheme, some ruse that will lead to additional burdens being placed on the public. It has even been suggested that the scheme is a sneaky way to reduce subsidies. Whether the criticisms are valid or invalid the one thing all these doubts and suspicions about the aim, timing and attendant circumstances of the announcement tell is that, like it or not, privatisation does not sit well with many people, and for reasons that blend political and economic considerations with a sense of history and a lot of gut feeling. No amount of window dressing or cosmetic PR has been able to up the standing of what has become a derogatory term in the political lexicon, at least among the public, long inclined to eye everything with suspicion, and privatisation, in particular, with distaste.

Those who wrinkled their noses at privatisation from the outset now furnish a long list of reservations about what they see as the government's latest wheeze. The process, they claim, will culminate in the sale of distributed shares to a small band of investors and not, as is the declared aim of the programme, broaden the base of share ownership. Others grumble about attempts to bribe the people, whispering that the government is engaged in a conspiracy to kill two birds with one stone, ridding itself of the heavy legacy of the public sector by tossing its remaining assets onto the shoulders of the Egyptian people and then washing its hands of any responsibility to clean up the mess should anything go wrong.

Two questions come to mind. First, will the government reconsider its decision if it transpires that, after all is said and done, popular opinion remains firmly opposed to the scheme; and second, why the sudden emphasis on popular participation in share ownership now? Nor is it possible to help wondering just what criteria have been used to select the companies involved in this massive giveaway. Over the course of several television interviews Minister of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin has repeatedly stressed that the companies are all solid and trustworthy, but there is such a thing as protesting too much.

Perhaps the source of greatest anxiety is the spectre of national assets falling into the hands of foreign monopolists. It is a concern Mohieldin has been at pains to assuage, using his interviews to explain the regulations put in place to forestall such a prospect. But the anxiety cannot be laid to rest so easily. Those who, like the experts in the Ministry of Investment during the months they were drawing up the project, have had the opportunity to study the privatisation programmes of the countries of the former socialist bloc cannot fail but be aware of the flaws that surfaced when the schemes were put into effect in the 1990s. Companies were sold at knockdown prices, depriving national treasuries of much needed revenue, and without provisions that might add the new technologies and skills that would make companies more viable. Worse still, the distortions in the ownership and disruption in the management caused by the breaking up of companies reduced their ability to access further investment. In addition to these faults, enumerated by Bulent Seven in his 2002 study of the legal aspects of privatisation in Europe, one of the conditions for any successful "popular privatisation" is the existence of easily accessible and efficiently operated centres for the distribution, exchange and registration of shares.

Even given the minister of investment's pledges that privatisation processes in the former communist bloc have been thoroughly scrutinised with an eye towards benefiting from their experience and picking up where they left off there is legitimate concern that the pitfalls they encountered may repeat themselves here. The minister found himself in the firing line on a number of talk shows. Responding to a barrage of questions and criticisms he insisted that, even if the process is not without problems, privatisation remains vital to economic growth. He also expressed an understanding of public apprehensions, which he attributed to a general lack of familiarity with what is a relatively new idea, adding that governments are frequently unpopular when they are forced to take tough decisions. He also argued that the bulk of the public's apprehensions were unfounded since the rules and dynamics of the stock market will prevent monopolies.

Comforting as this may sound the questions will continue. For in this controversy, as in so many others, whether centred on a sunken ferry, normalisation or social insurance, a familiar pattern emerges. Once again we hear the constant sound of dissonant chords reflecting a climate of distrust and discord over the shape of the future and the priorities of the government. If the two sides, the government and those who disagree with its views, want to emerge from this latest controversy with a something truly positive and worthwhile then perhaps it would be useful for those with doubts to hold their horses until the situation becomes clearer and put a little more effort into understanding the proposed solutions before rushing to condemn them. Then, at least, differences can be contained within the realm of rational debate rather than degenerate into the hurling of charges of treachery and unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct. At the same time, if the government took more trouble to look beyond the immediate boundaries of the differences and showed a greater understanding of the sensitivities and anxieties of the people, acknowledging the public's right to voice its hopes and worries for the future, this would do much to alleviate tension. After all, it is just as much the government's job to listen, no matter how disagreeable it finds what it hears, as to explain its views and positions. Only then can it ask the people to bear with it until it is proven either right or wrong.