Maybe we don't need them?
During this holiday break, we have more time to catch up with our readings. And some of us were intrigued by a little article in the year-end edition of the Economist.
It's about Somalia and its mobile telecommunication business.
It is mentioned that a call from a Somali mobile phone is generally cheaper and clearer than a call from anywhere else in Africa [1]. Great! Sounds like a success story coming from a struggling country. Then we read further:
One reason for such success is this: Somalia has no government.
What?
Yes. The central government of Somalia was overthrown in January 1991, and since then Somalia is in a state of civil war. There is no clear central governmental authority there [2].
The Economist wrote: No government means no state telecoms company to worry about, no corrupt ministry officials to pay off (there is no ministry), and the freedom to choose the best-value equipment.
Furthermore, taxes and security cost are low (paid to local authority or strongman), there is almost no custom duty, and no need to pay for licenses [1].
As a result, its mobile telecom service can provide cheaper and better services to the population.
How very interesting. We never thought of this. You know what this means? This means 'government' is optional ! (Well, at least to the Somalian mobile telecom companies.)
After reading that article, we couldn't help thinking about this one question:
"Which would we rather have: A government ranked among the most corrupt in the world [3], or no government at all?"
How wicked.
=====
Source:
[1] The Economist, December 24th - January 6th 2006, page 95, Somalia Calling
[2] MSN Encarta Somalia - Government
[3] Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
It's about Somalia and its mobile telecommunication business.
It is mentioned that a call from a Somali mobile phone is generally cheaper and clearer than a call from anywhere else in Africa [1]. Great! Sounds like a success story coming from a struggling country. Then we read further:
One reason for such success is this: Somalia has no government.
What?
Yes. The central government of Somalia was overthrown in January 1991, and since then Somalia is in a state of civil war. There is no clear central governmental authority there [2].
The Economist wrote: No government means no state telecoms company to worry about, no corrupt ministry officials to pay off (there is no ministry), and the freedom to choose the best-value equipment.
Furthermore, taxes and security cost are low (paid to local authority or strongman), there is almost no custom duty, and no need to pay for licenses [1].
As a result, its mobile telecom service can provide cheaper and better services to the population.
How very interesting. We never thought of this. You know what this means? This means 'government' is optional ! (Well, at least to the Somalian mobile telecom companies.)
After reading that article, we couldn't help thinking about this one question:
"Which would we rather have: A government ranked among the most corrupt in the world [3], or no government at all?"
How wicked.
=====
Source:
[1] The Economist, December 24th - January 6th 2006, page 95, Somalia Calling
[2] MSN Encarta Somalia - Government
[3] Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
posted by Indonesia Anonymus | 9:36 PM
4 Comments:
Yeah..tricky one :-) But my best and short response to this article is..I wish we, each one of us except kids and the disabled, can govern ourselves! We're the only one who can control our own behaviour, right? But that's in an ideal world, isn't it? :-) I always imagine living in such world...no rules no government. Everybody knows better...
Happy New Year to you and all your readers here. Best wishes in 2006, and continue your good work...Salam hangat :-)
wanna know how easy (or hard) managing a nation? try nationstates.net :)
Oh my god, I just read this post. Hahahah... turns out libertarian socialists are right all along huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home