They created government companies to solve the government's problems, but they are not even accountable to the government; They do not have transparency

The president's decision to clarify the status of state-owned companies is a correct, logical action in line with national interests. They created the post of government companies to solve the government's problems, but they are not even accountable to the government; They don't have transparency. It first appeared in Safir Arjan.

According to Ambassador Arjan's report, Jalal Rashidi Kochi, a former MP, wrote: State companies were established with a specific philosophy of existence. The main intention of their creation was to create a platform for production, wealth creation, and at the same time, to attract human resources.

In fact, these companies were supposed to be the auxiliary arm of the government in the field of production and job creation. But with the passage of time, the function of many of these collections went astray. Today, a large part of these companies, instead of being the driving engine of production, have become intermediaries between the government and the workforce, they have practically found a function similar to a broker, which results in an increasing dependence on government budgets.

The fact is that the government is forced to directly intervene to pay the salaries and wages of the company's employees. Instead of providing necessary resources through production processes and added value, these companies have become conduits to receive money from the government. They receive the funding, take their share and profit and pay the rest as salary; This is the same blind knot that has turned government companies into budget consumers instead of capital creators.

The second and perhaps bigger problem is the issue of "lack of accountability" and the heavy share of these companies from the country's public budget. A very high percentage of the country's budget is available to these companies, but in practice they are not accountable to any regulatory body. why The answer should be found in their management network. Many of these companies are managed by people who, not so long ago, were responsible in governments; It doesn't matter which political spectrum they are from (fundamentalist, reformist, etc.). After the end of the responsibility or retirement, these people reappear in the form of the board of directors of these companies and practically take over the management cycle. These behind-the-scenes relationships and influence networks, along with the cover of "lack of transparency" that has intensified especially after the sanctions era, have caused these companies to become bigger and more powerful day by day and avoid accountability to public opinion and supervisory institutions. Continued on page 5

Meanwhile, the recent action of the president to organize corporate forces is a step forward and commendable. Although the follow-up of the fate of this communication and its progress is a matter of debate, it must be accepted that this path is a rocky and difficult path. The government alone will not be able to cope with this complex bureaucracy, because many of the executive body and even people around the government have a hand in the fire of the interests of these companies, willy-nilly. Accordingly, the only way for this project to succeed is the firm support of the media and public opinion. By entering the field of clarification, the media should reveal the hidden layers of this network in order to provide the possibility of change and correction. Without public supervision and demanding pressure, existing corrupt structures will continue to exist and will not allow positive and transformative events to happen in the country's economy. Reforming state-owned enterprises is not a choice but a vital necessity to overcome the current economic impasse.