There is nothing as
precious to a country as visionary leadership. During Europe’s brutal
17th Century religious war, it mattered on whose side you were on. As
the Habsburg Dynasty, which ruled Europe at the time, and the Papacy
(Roman Catholic) both sought to stamp out any challenge to their
authority mounted by a fast spreading protestantism (primarily the cause of the war), Catholic sovereigns were obliged to unite in opposition to the new heresis.
authority mounted by a fast spreading protestantism (primarily the cause of the war), Catholic sovereigns were obliged to unite in opposition to the new heresis.
However, France, then a Catholic
sovereign under chief minister Cardinal de Richelieu, boldly abandoned
the papacy, citing its own strategic interests. Cardinal de Richelieu
went on to articulate the dominance of the pursuit of a nation’s
strategic interests. In fact, he invented the idea that the State was
abstract and a permanent entity existing in its own right.
This
later came to be known as raison d’etat. Under Richelieu, it was in
France’s national interest (of European domination) to prevent the
consolidation of central Europe. Indeed, the aim of keeping central
Europe divided remained the guiding principle of French foreign policy
from 1624 to 1871. It was a policy well articulated by the visionary
Cardinal de Richelieu who, as a cardinal, owed a duty to the papacy.
There
are a number of modern-day visionary leaders. Dubai is a classical
case. The senior Al Maktoum, not contemptuous of its strategic location,
visualised Dubai as an economic oasis. Some kind of a 21st Centrury
Arabian renaissance. A place to stop briefly, replenish the bank account
and move on.
Port cities have been known to bring in
people on a temporary basis, after which they go back to their
countries. Some may decide to stay longer but on the whole, they aren’t
meant to be there indefinitely. The Al Maktoums understood this very
well and decided to build Dubai around this concept. Discovery of oil
reserves couldn’t come in at a better time. They rolled out the
requisite infrastructure: a free zone port, connecting roads, a massive
airport, shopping malls and towering highrise architectural
masterpieces.
But more critically, in mid-1980s, they
envisioned an airline to bring in the traffic. The birth of Emirates
Airlines. It’s a long story. But to cut it short, in the year 2017/2018,
Dubai Airport handled a staggering 88 million passengers. Emirates
handled about 70 percent of that traffic.
Brand for services
Today,
Dubai is a brand for financial services, tourism and shopping. In 2017,
tourism, trade (wholesale and retail) and financial services accounted
for 40 percent of its GDP. And Emirates Airlines is a pillar. Indeed,
business decisions around Emirates as an airline are country-driven (not
company) and it’s overall strategy appears to be equally aligned. The
same scenario appears to play out with Ethiopian Airlines.
In Kenya, there is a penchant to designate Kenya Airways as a
nationally strategic asset and take misaligned country decisions on it.
Where is the visionary articulation of Kenya as a brand for financial
services, tourism and shopping that places the airline at the centre?
For starters, the planned construction of a new terminal at the Jomo
Kenyatta International Airport (Greenfield Phase 1), which had been
projected to raise the airport’s annual capacity to 16 million
passengers, was shelved.
Secondly, while Vision 2030’s
Second Medium Term Plan on tourism carefully outlined steps towards
improving Kenya’s offerings, it failed to assign the airline a central
role. Further, KQ formulates its business strategies fully contemptuous
of the country’s priorities.
For the avoidance of
doubt, Kenya Airways is a listed company that prioritises return on its
shareholders’ equity. The airline’s ‘strategic asset’ designation is
therefore overstated. Consequently, taking country decisions that prop
up such a private corporation amounts, in my view, to government
generosity.
No comments:
Post a Comment