IS THERE A NEED TO PRIVATISE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

I may not be qualified to state such but being a bonafide Swazi interested in seeing the country progressing than being privatized to selfish business people who are only concerned about making money than empowering fellow Swazis.
I have noted that a number of government organs in the country have been privatized and some are still in the process of going through such a phase. It is no hidden fact that some parastatals like CTA have been a financial drain to government to such an extent that Government is dreaming of reducing the CTA’s looting hole through privatization.
Even though the country is engulfed with huge financial crushes one should know that , asking too much might lead to the government being forced to privates most services in order to benefit tinini
According to my untrained eye government is not in the business of creating demand but it provides services for its society to function happily and by privatizing most of the services it will mean that a lot of fly-by –night businesses would emerge and create new demands for new products. We know that our local government picks up thrash , while the national government services ensures that it teaches our children through OVC fund then I smell a rat when in the end of the day government privatizes its essential services then these ‘rich’ businesses will pick more thrash and make a lot of money at government’s expense.
I don’t care what other people would say but the Swazi government is directly accountable to me and you . Even next year the country will hold its elections and we (Swazis ) eligible to vote. On the other side of the private sector the corporate CEO Is controlled by a small group of people known as the board of directors while we (Swazis)  wish to fire our Members of Parliament, all we have to do is show up at the polls (something Swazis in the Urban areas are notoriously bad at).
I have just read from some useful publication that Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia (Now Zimbabwe) 1964-1979, often said: "we were never beaten by our enemies - we were betrayed by our friends". The West essentially promised white leaders in South Africa that they would be allowed to continue practicing apartheid if they would stop arming Rhodesia in her war against communism. Between 1979 and 1980, Rhodesia fell into Marxist dictatorship under Mugabe and had its name changed to Zimbabwe . The World Bank provided loans to Mugabe up until May 2000. This is not an academic issue since millions face starvation because of Mugabe's Marxist policy of seizing the nation's farms. Ominously, Mugabe has turned to communist China to run farms in  Zimbabwe.

     In the 1980s the world saw starving children in Ethiopia, but what they did not realize was that this was a planned famine. The Marxist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam undertook nationalization of agriculture and massive population resettlement program modeled on Stalin and Mao's starvation programmes in the 1930s and 40s which killed millions. Meanwhile the World Bank continued to send Mengistu millions of dollars, much of it intended for the ministry of agriculture undertaking the resettlement programme.  

     In country after country in Africa, there has been no accountability in the use of World Bank loans... Billions in World Bank loans have been embezzled in Africa and rarely anyone is held accountable and prosecuted.

     It comes as no surprise then that by its own admission, the World Bank's purported policy of strengthening African free market economies by lending $50 billion for 'Structural Adjustment programs' and other projects over the past thirty years has been an abject failure. That's because their real purpose was the exact opposite:

     The Bank's own reports in the 1980s revealed that it played a major role in nationalizing the development process throughout the Third World. Regarding these harsh conditionalities imposed by the structural adjustment loans, a 1985 confidential bank report by leading development experts concluded that 'the SAL's seemingly hard and all-encompassing conditionality is largely illusory'. The bank and some proponents of foreign aid claim that a wave of privatization swept the Third World but actually 'privatization was almost all talk'. World Bank loans either go directly to the recipient government or must be guaranteed by the government. So, by inevitably increasing the politicization of Third World economies, World Bank aid was the economic tranquilizer dart which created a weaker domestic market for the foreign multinationals to feed on. I remember two years ago , when I just ignorant of the world’s political situations but after intense reading I concluded that by end of the 1980s that by end of the 1980s the banks had successfully empowered and corrupted Third World governments with billions in bank loans. Liberal democracy and the free market had been strangled. Now for the second play: The sell off. The directive for the sell off came from the World Bank and IMF at the end of the 1980s as shown by World Bank documents signed by James Wolfensen and leaked to a BBC investigative journalist, Greg Palast. The World Bank flew in their teams who dictated their plans, an average of 111 conditions in a pre-written document, to each nation's finance minister. If he refused he would be denied any further loans and the life blood which had sustained his government would be cut. These conditions included selling off the natural resources and national industries to foreign multinationals. In the case of Argentina, they required the nation to give up its gas water and oil to Vivendi, Repsol, Enron and a few other multinationals. In 1988 Jeb Bush made a call to an Argentine senator asking him to sell a gas pipeline to Enron at one fifth of its market value. In return, a percentage of the discount would be deposited in the senator's Swiss bank account. The process has been called 'briberization' rather than privatization. 

    When making the case for such a grand conspiracy as this, it is helpful to call a whistleblower to the witness stand.  Published in November 2004, the book entitled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins ( now a New York Times best seller) is a public confession by an insider about the real purpose of Western loans to developing countries. Working in a private consulting firm, Perkins was one of the 'economic hit men' who carried out the plan detailed in the World Bank documents. Perkins describes a classical conspiracy between government and big business. The U.S. National Security Agency recruited and trained the 'economic hit men' to carry out their duties through private consulting firms and other corporations. The beneficiaries of the conspiracy were the international bankers and shareholders in the multi-national corporations. Unable to repay the loans organized by the hit men, developing countries had to surrender their national resources to their Western creditors.

    What an extraordinary scam: Destroy a country's domestic capitalism and free-markets, get it into massive debt and then with financial gun to its head, shake it down for everything its got. It is even more extraordinary for the fact that, because this piracy is conducted in international waters, it isn't even illegal! One of the questions raised in the next chapter is whether or not these agents have been acting, to some degree, on  Her Majesty's (secret) service.