Barbara Walters chats with Forward Syria
Swaying between art and seduction
Discussing monetary policy with the man in charge
Where the earth screams in horror
11/23/2011 - Issue 56
Sam Dalla: Was the Chinese model that good?
by Hamoud Almahmoud
Most people know Sam Dallah in his capacity as professor of law, Dean of the Higher Institute of Business Administration (HIBA) and more recently, as one of the heavyweights in the newly created Constitutional Committee. Dalla is also Chairman of the Administrative Reform Committee in Syria. “Reform” is a big word, no doubt. It has been used and abused by government authorities for years, affecting its impact on day-to-day Syrians. With good intentions and a ‘bulldozer attitude’ Dalla is focused on restoring substance to a word that is vital for any sustainable civil service.
Today, people are divided on what kind of economy is needed for Syria; a social market one, a socialist one, a purely capitalist one, or a combination. You singled out the market economy as basis for your work, alluding of course, to privatization. Can you assure that this approach, adopted by the Syrian government five years ago, is still underway?
Officially, the state still adopts the market economy approach. I hope this remains the case because a market economy was in itself major step forward for Syria. Withdrawing it can be risky. Meanwhile, we ought to emphasize that Syria has every right to enhance the state’s role in regularization. The state needs to regulate, for example, street peddlers and chaotic shacks that are found all over sidewalks. Those sidewalks, at the end of the day, are public property and somebody needs to prevent peddlers from opening there with no license.
This is where the regulatory role of the state becomes vital. If the state wants to work in industry, or service related sectors, it can do so under principles of the private sector: quality, speed, and cost-effectiveness. As a liberal, I do not fear privatization but I don’t think it is a good solution to the problems Syria is facing because it needs highly qualified management, which is lacking. What I have advocated, rather than privatization, is PPP (Public-Private Partnership).
As Chairman of the Administrative Reform Committee, can you tell us more about the ‘roadmap’ for reforms underway in Syria?
In all countries, there is one ultimate authority leading administrative reform. In the US, for example, administrative reform was launched and led by Vice-President Al Gore, who raised his famed slogan: “Reinventing government.” That also applies to Great Britain during the Thatcher years, when a committee was charged with leading administrative change in the UK. In similar cases in the Arab world, prime ministers are usually appointed chair of administrative reform committees, along with his deputy and a senior minister. This was the case, for example, in Morocco, Tunisia, and Jordan. In Syria, the Prime Minister and his Deputy are onboard the committee, and of course, so am I. It needs to be a committee of technocrats, rather than politicians, who have direct access to decision makers.
Another solution, of course, would be to establish a “supervising authority” that oversees the entire civil service. Currently such an authority does not exist in Syria although we have 1.2 million civil servants throughout the bureaucracy.
You once said that there are three levels for administrative reform. 1) Separating politics from administration 2) Changing administration behavior both in the public and private sector 3) Reducing the state’s role in economic activity. Can you tell us more, and whether these levels need to be tackled simultaneously, or come as prerequisites to one another?
It is certainly better if they move together simultaneously. In Level I, administration needs to be neutralized. It cannot take sides with one party against the other. Non-interference in politics is vital. Efficiency, rather than political affiliations, needs to be the main criteria for recruitment.
In Level II, we need to introduce rivalry and competitiveness into the work environment. The private sector mentality needs to prevail in the public one. When it does, the public sector will no longer accept financial loss, as it did for many long years. The government treasury will still need to bankroll the public sector, but when it gets into shape, it will start generating revenue, and tax money, for the state.
It will then become an asset, rather than a burden, as we find today. Loss in state-run companies that are supposed to be profitable, like public transport, for example, is unjustifiable.
Recently, you wrote that no economic reform is possible without political reform, and vice-versa.
This is true. I believe that politics is the universal canopy under which other policies, economic or administrative, are laid. We cannot apply economic competitiveness unless we have political competitiveness as well.
Does Article 8 of the constitution, which designates the Baath Party as leader of “state and society,” hinder political competitiveness?
Absolutely! Reshaping the social contract between people and the government needs political competitiveness.
Some point to the Chinese model as a perfect example of how to draw a line between politics and economics. That is a system where power is monopolized by a single party, in China’s case being the Communist Party, whereas economic competition thrives.
The question we need to answer here is whether the Chinese model created development or growth? It created growth but failed to spread social development. It was a system limited to generating billionaires, based however, on a very poor distribution of wealth. This does not mean that the Chinese Model is a positive example to follow. Additionally, we cannot compare Syria to China because we don’t match the Chinese in size, money, manpower, and experiences. Having said that, I repeat that we need to take a long hard look at the Chinese model, and ask whether it truly can be considered a success story?
