The Greatest Good for the Smallest Group

There is a belief that societies should make decisions or policy based on the greatest good for the greatest number. In Nigeria, going by our antecedents, we can argue that those in positions of authority, the elite and/or the educated do not subscribe to this.

Five years after the Electric Power Sector Reform Act (the Act) was signed into law and after billions of dollars have disappeared into a bottomless sinkhole, we are not any closer to implementing the Act or solving the acute electricity problem.

The lack of power is one of the hottest presidential campaign issues and every time there is an opportunity for people to speak about the issues which need the attention of the man who will be president in 2011 – electricity is on the list. All the pressure to resolve the problem seems focused on the president and the presidential aspirants and how we need them to fix our power problems.

But what about us? What is our role in assisting the implementation of the Power Act? If there are only six degrees of separation between people, then we all know one or more of the 50,000 employees of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) who are partnering with other alleged enemies of electricity such as the generator and diesel importers to ensure we stay off the track to sustainable and consistent power.

These 50,000 Nigerians together with the NLC and other ‘comrades’ who jettison socialist thinking when it suits them think that their fears about job security should hold the rest of us to ransom. Has anyone tried to quantify how much revenue and value Nigeria and Nigerians have lost from our abysmal power supply? The lives lost in hospitals during surgery or the death of premature babies in incubators with no power? The lives lost to generator fumes and malfunctions? The loss to our productivity and industry? Is it right for Dimeji Bankole, the Speaker of the House of Representatives to say, five years after the Act was passed that ‘he is worried about 50,000 jobs which will be lost’ as a result of the implementation of the Act? What did the legislature think would happen as a result of privatization and why is the loss of jobs accepted as a fait accompli? Across many sectors in different parts of the world, privatization has frequently resulted in job creation and skill development.

So what are the fears of the national union of electricity employees (NUEE) and their agents who see the privatization of PHCN as a tragedy?

The first is that they will loose jobs. And the quick answer to this is that privatization could (i) increase jobs because there will be competition and power companies will need people with the skills to manage our archaic equipment and infrastructure and (ii) we could see an increase in compensation for electricity sector employees because the competition will drive the power companies to pay more in order to attract and retain the best. Instead of thinking positively and creatively, these 50,0000 people prefer to scuttle the privatization of PHCN in order to cripple the future of 150,000,000 people so they can secure jobs which are only guaranteed until retirement. Then what? They retire to sitting outside in the dark or inhaling the carbon monoxide from their generators with the rest of us.

Another argument that labour and the NUEE make in “Power Reform: Labour Moves Against Privatization” (published in Thisday, November 9 2010) is that corruption is a larger obstacle to electricity reform than government ownership. I say corruption and government ownership go hand in hand. We know from all the failed enterprises the Federal Government is involved in (steel manufacturing, refining petroleum products, making fertilizer, manufacturing sugar, telecommunications etc.) that our government is inefficient and should not be concerned with managing businesses. The best role for government is as regulator and provider of an enabling environment for business.

Privatizing power is the reason why countries like India, Chile and Ghana to name a few are no longer suffering the embarrassing power cuts we have in Nigeria. Those opposed to the privatisation of PHCN routinely hold up Enron and the 2002 California black outs as an example of a failed privatisation. But Enron is an example of corporate greed not isolated to privatized entities and the dangers of government slacking off on its role as regulator.

The NUEE and labour groups are also worried that PHCN will be bought by corrupt Nigerians but since PHCN has been broken up into several companies, it is unlikely that all will be purchased by Nigerians. I am not condoning corruption but isn’t it better for those who appropriate our wealth to spend it in Nigeria instead of buying up real estate abroad? Besides, employees of PHCN allegedly have their own corrupt racket going on – from the executives who divert funds meant for investing in infrastructure to the mystery of the disappearing transformers and technicians who extort money from ‘optionless’ customers during the holidays and special occasions.

Whether privatization opponents like it or not, the telecom sector has made the benefits of privatisation glaring because despite the growing number of GSM subscribers, NITEL cannot get its act together because it is still managed by government. Should we hold on to decaying assets merely to keep a few thousands ‘ungainfully’ employed?

Finally, there is a tenuous argument made by counsel to the NUEE, that the privatization of PHCN is ‘illegal’ because the 1999 Constitution ‘imposes a duty on the Federal Government to manage and operate the main sector of the economy…which undeniably includes the power sector’. This is why according to him, Nigerians have a duty to resist the privatisation of PHCN.

But in the Part II of the 1999 Constitution – the Concurrent Legislative List expressly gives States the authority to make laws with respect to electricity and the establishment of electric power stations; generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to areas not covered by the grid; and the promotion and management of State electric power stations. This means States can manage electricity for themselves…if this is so, how can power generation be considered the exclusive right of the FG? Even without this provision, how can the duty to manage the economy mean that government must remain in the business of providing electricity especially when it has proven to be completely inept at it?

I sympathise with NUEE. They see our legislators, executives and politicians amassing private wealth and bending policy to benefit themselves – why shouldn’t they want to protect themselves as well? But Nigeria is in desperate need of electricity. We should not support this bid to stop the privatisation of PHCN for sentimental reasons. All our development needs, aspirations and visions for the future are tied to power and the short term value of jobs for 50,000 people masquerading as concern for corruption and legality should not trump the long term value for the entire country. The greatest good for the greatest number; that is what should guide us.