Airports should not be privatised, said a poster put out by the trade unions there during their day?s strike earlier this month, as these are national property. The logic of this definition leads to ridiculous outcomes. Thus, only enterprises run by the state and properties owned by it can be defined as national. And anything owned and operated by the private sector cannot be treated as belonging to the Indian nation. Since our Left trade unions would not consider anything owned by the private sector as ?national,? the Indian nation effectively owns only those assets that belong to the public sector. The private sector and all those who work for it are, thus, ?stateless? and should perhaps apply to the United Nations for refugee status. This would include all those leaders and workers of all political parties who are not employed by the Indian government or public sector.
Arguably, this goes against the Left parties? stated position that, time and again, have lauded the role of the ?national bourgeoisie? and revolutionary potential of the Indian peasantry. One wonders how workers employed by the public sector and, thus, ?national,? can ever form an alliance with the Indian peasant, who believes only in private ownership. Would Left unions consider asking the Indian farmer to accept state ownership of all farm property so that it can be called national? The last time such ?national treatment? was enforced on the peasantry, as in Russia and later in China, the experiments ended in disaster and private property had to be restored in both countries.
It is time, therefore, that trade unions not only refrain from coining such retrograde slogans that seek to divide into ?national? and ?non-national,? but also recognise that the Indian nation, or any nation, includes both public and private sectors that contribute equally to the nation?s growth and progress and its stature. The private sector is not inferior (or superior) to the public sector. That Air Deccan, Jet Airways or King-fisher Airlines are as much national as Indian Airlines or Air India. That the privately managed airports such as that in Cochin or the ones coming up in Hydera-bad or Bangalore are as much ?national? as those managed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI). That the private taxi operators who take passengers to airports are an equally important part of this nation, as those who work inside those airports. Unfortunately, the debate on disinvestment or privatisation of state-run enterprises has missed this simple truth.
Those against privatisation often point to unscrupulous practices in the private sector and the siphoning of loans taken from banks. Undeniably, there are unscrupulous elements in the private sector, as in the public sector or political parties or state organs or in any other institution. The day LIC unions went on strike to support the strike against airport privatisation, they did not seem to notice that some of their own members had colluded with private agents to dupe New Delhi Municipal Corporation employees of their savings through forged insurance policy documents. Corrup-tion is common to public and private sectors and has nothing to do with ownership. Often, corruption transcends ownership boundaries and both public and private sector agencies or employees collude to gain from it. On the other hand, there are institutions and companies in both sectors that can be hailed as exemplary and follow governance norms as well as those practised anywhere in the world. Corruption, defined as violation of law, happens due to a combination of greed and lax governance and not because of two forms of ownership, viz. public and private.
? State enterprises and agencies aren?t in a higher moral category ? The test is whether providers are able to satisfy consumers of the service ? Use our taxes to finance whatever the private sector cannot deliver |
The moment trade unions recognise this reality, many of their stated reasons for their strike against airport privatisation disappear. How should it matter if airports are run by the government or the private sector, as long as they can offer service that satisfies the user of airports? It is a pity the user is treated as inconsequential by our trade unions. Did they care to ascertain the views of airport users through a survey on what they want? Are they satisfied with the service they get at Delhi and Mumbai airports? Would the consumer prefer private operations at airports or do they continue to repose faith in AAI? The trade unions claim their democratic right to strike. But have they ever recognised that consumers must have democratic rights as well?
More important, both public and private sectors need to be evaluated and seen in the right perspective. Both have their role and need to co-exist. Whatever the private sector can deliver effectively and has the capacity and resources to deliver, it must be allowed to, provided its operations are subject to considerations of national security defined as precisely as possible. The same yardstick, however, does not apply to the public sector. Given the scarcity of resources with it, the public sector must focus on areas where markets fail to work and the private sector cannot deliver the goods. By definition, the public sector must focus on public goods, defined as those that cannot be effectively delivered by the market at a given stage of development. And this list must change as the economy evolves. Citizens pay taxes to ensure the entire population gets access to public goods such as primary education, healthcare, roads, irrigation, drinking water in rural areas, law and order, etc. The moment this yardstick is applied, the debate on privatisation of public sector enterprises, regardless of whether they make money or not, would appear totally misplaced.
The writer is an advisor to Ficci. These are his personal views
