The lesson from Harrods |22 May 2010
Its new owners are the royal family of Qatar or, more precisely, the Qatar Investment Authority. The news made headlines round the world, and the sale was prominently featured in many newspapers.
Everybody talked about it, for the simple reason that Harrods is no ordinary shop. It is the temple of London luxury, almost a monument to the British capital. Located in the city centre, it is there – according to well-placed sources – that the Queen and the British aristocracy do their shopping,
Founded in 1861 and covering an area of 90,000 square metres allocated to over 300 departments, Harrods attracts almost 15 million visitors a year. Few large department stores in the world can boast of attracting so many shoppers, especially those in search of luxury.
But in spite of the celebrity of the shop, it is worthwhile noting that the news of the sale was announced as if it were the most natural thing. There were no recriminations. There were no condemnations, even though the property changed hands and passed from a resident to a non-resident.
The fact that Mohamed Al Fayed is of Egyptian nationality (not having succeeded in obtaining British nationality) does not make him less of a figure in British business circles. Has the English phlegm prevailed once again? No, it is simply because this sale equates to new capital, new investments and new jobs.
The sale of Harrods was understood by one and all to be an ordinary financial transaction. And that was that!
It would be interesting to find out, given all that Harrods represents in terms of celebrity and strategic importance in London, if such a transaction in Seychelles would have been greeted with the same intelligence and wisdom.
The answer is assuredly in the negative. For recent history has shown that the moment that the government disposes of a property, a plot of land or assets a public outcry ensues. Is it due to ignorance, an issue of race, or simply bad faith? One is sorely tempted to believe that it is a combination of all three.
How else could one interpret the hostility manifested when certain assets or plot of land are sold to a foreign investor in return for massive investments in the country?
Moreover, considering that several countries, including our neighbours, are doing everything possible to attract those investments – especially Arab investment – because they are not strapped for cash, one is obliged to ask oneself whether those so-called politicians who speak out against certain foreign investors have the interest and welfare of our people at heart.
The fact of the matter is that investment means new jobs and income for numerous Seychellois families.
It is obvious that the inflow of foreign capital, especially Arab, disturbs some of our politicians. It throws into disarray their strategy and creates pessimism. For those politicians know that foreign investment is the barometer of the confidence that one has in a government; it is a measure of esteem, stability and seriousness.
Having succeeded in obtaining the sympathy and the confidence of investors such as the royal family of Abu Dhabi, James Michel has sown total confusion among his detractors. Seychelles’ march to progress is ineluctable, the only option left to nostalgic politicians is to whinge!
Every country, large or small, is after foreign investment. The United States leads this race, followed by the United Kingdom and France.
France, for its part, is in the process of revising its legislation so that it is in conformity with the exigencies of Islamic banking.
Foreign investment fuels growth and sustainable development if the appropriate policies are in place. And this is precisely what the Michel government is doing, with a very large degree of success. The success of the reform programme is proof enough of that.
Contributed