Qatarization: Success Depends on How it is Interpreted -Mahmudul Alam, Electrical Engineering Junior Texas A&M University at Qatar One day while working in the library, I received a phone call. A man over the phone identified himself as someone from Qatar Petrochemical Company (QAPCO), and then congratulated me. He told me that he was very impressed of my resume and was ready to offer me an internship. However, there was no information about my nationality in my resume. Upon learning from me that I am a non-qatari, he pegged back and told me that he can t offer me the internship because of QAPCO s commitment to Qatarization, which restricted QAPCO to offer internships only to Qatari students. I was shocked, but until recently before writing this paper, I didn t give much thought about it. Was I discriminated? The answer to this fundamental question depends on how an affirmative action policy like Qatarization is interpreted. The paper presents two different interpretations of Qatarization. While both interpretations tend to claim that Qatarization, if implemented in parallel to their respective explanation, would help the economic development of Qatar, the first interpretation defends preferential treatment highlighting the purpose of the policy and showing the Qatarization s relevance with social and economic utility while the second interpretation focuses more on quality Qatarization and respect for individual merit. The official website of Qatarization, www.qatarization.com.qa, defines Qatarization as a strategic process of increasing the number of Qatari nationals in various key positions in different sectors of Qatar Economy, which has been heavily dependent on foreign employees. [1] In 2001, under the leadership of HH Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al- Thani, the Emir of the State of Qatar, HE Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah, the Second Deputy Premier and Energy Minister, launched the comprehensive Qatarization plan that sought to recruit 50% of national workforce in Qatar s booming Oil and Gas industries by 2005. [2] In March 2008, Qatar s Civil Service Minister Sultan Hassan Al- Dossari announced another scheme to nationalize 20% of the workforce of the private sector within a year [3]. The Qatarization policy could be attributed as an Affirmative Action because it is a national policy of Qatar that seeks to employ Qatari people who had been socio-economically the non-dominant group in the oil and gas industries and, in the private sector as well. Through an affirmative action policy like Qatarization, Qatar seeks to redress the negative effects developed because of Qatar being over reliant on expatriate work force.
With Qatarization becoming a buzzword in most of the big companies and the government sector in Qatar, the interpretation of it is crucial for a successful implementation of Qatarization that will sustain the current economic growth of Qatar. It is an understandable fact that with millions of dollars being invested to create a Knowledge Based Economy (KBE) for Qatar in near future, Qataris are keen to see themselves in the driving seat of their own economy instead of the foreign employees. Nonetheless, Qataris and the human resources managers should be extra careful in interpreting Qatarization and putting this affirmative action in practice, especially when it comes to recruiting new people to various professional disciplines. Qatarization could be interpreted in two ways: First Interpretation: Considering nationality as one of the criterion to recruit a person or to award a promotion to an already employed person. Second Interpretation: Preferential order based on nationality coming into consideration only if the selected candidates are equal in terms of professional competence. The first interpretation, the nationality factor adding weight to or subtracting weight from the qualification of a candidate is highly controversial because it gives rise to an ethical and moral dilemma, and that is: the first interpretation could be a violation of the right to equal treatment. Before presenting arguments on both sides of the ethical dilemma, it has to be noted that the proponents of the first interpretation will be the opponent of the second interpretation. Similarly, the advocates of the second interpretation will be the adversary of the first interpretation. This is apparent, and can be easily comprehended merely by reading both interpretations. The defenders of the first interpretation, where nationality precedes qualification, might argue using the logic presented by Georgia Warnke, currently the Associate Dean and a professor of Humanity, Arts and Philosophy at the University of Toronto. Using her logic, it could be shown that conception of equality will not be violated even if the preferential interpretation of Qatarization is chosen. Professor Warnke used Carl Cohen s interpretation of Aristotelian Principle to support her hypothesis. Cohen interpreted the Aristotelian Principle equals should be treated equally as It is wrong, always and everywhere, to give special advantage to any group, simply on the basis of physical characteristics that has no relevance to the award given or the burden imposed. [4] As Warnke noted, the key point in Cohen s interpretation of Aristotelian theory that potentially makes preferential treatment legitimate is relevancy. For example, let us assume that a government formulates a policy to provide free medical treatment to disabled people of the society. Although it apparently seems that the policy has relevance with physical traits (disability), a close look will reveal that disability is the not the basis of this relevance. Here, the relevance between the policy and disability has
been made by the purpose of assuring that special assistance to disabled will increase the utility of human resources or the collective good of the society, as this policy will help disabled people bring out their talents. This example illustrates that physical traits do not determine how something is relevant with a specific policy, and consequently, extending Cohen s interpretation, Professor Warnke said that it is in fact the purpose and utility that determines the relevancy. Simultaneously, the non-disabled people of the society cannot claim that government is discriminating them by not providing them free treatment too, because discrimination is not the purpose of this government policy. Another example is a subsidization policy undertook by Qatar Government. A few months ago the Government of Qatar decided to subsidize the state-run Qatar Flour Mills (QFM) to keep the price of khubz (Arabic Bread) stable. Now the state-run chicken firm of Qatar may claim that they have been discriminated, because Qatar government didn t formulate a similar subsidization policy to keep the price of chicken stable like that of khubz (The price of a packet of khubz remained one riyal while the price of chicken supplied by the state-run chicken firm plummeted from 10 riyals to 18 riyals). Is government discriminating? Professor s Warnke s logic will say no, because the relevance of subsidization the policy with khubz is determined by the purpose and that is public interest is best served if government subsidizes khubz instead of chicken as majority of the people, both the Qataris and the expatriates depend more on khubz than on the chicken supplied by Qatar s state-run chicken firm. Applying the same logic to the first interpretation of Qatarization, it can be argued that this interpretation is chosen by the purpose of quickly attaining the control of Qatari economy by the Qataris and meaningfully addressing the economic and social problems of Qatar like unemployment. Hence arguing from Warnke s perspective, the endorsement of job preference by Qatarization is an inevitable need as it will quickly reduce the gap created between the Qataris and their economy, because of Qataris being non-dominant in key positions in oil and gas industries from their independence in 1971 till mid 90s, partly due to their lagging in educational and technical expertise and partly due to their late realization. Also Qatarization, implemented in according to first interpretation, would reduce the number of unemployed Qatari youths and their employment in key positions of oil and gas industries would inspire their upcoming generation to go for education and serve their country. At the same time expatriates can t also claim that they are discriminated, because discrimination is not the purpose of Qatar Government, rather the relevance of preferential treatment with Qatarization has been made to serve the national interest of Qatar in the best possible way. Like the advocates of the first interpretation, the adversaries of it also have many arguments that they present against the first interpretation. At the heart of their argument lays the injustice that result from the violation of equal treatment due to counting nationality as one of the credentials of a candidate. Pundits against the preferential treatment attribute it as double standard and argue that this treatment is a subordination of merit and conduct. [5] Aside from this principal logic of injustice, there exist several other anti-preferential arguments. First, the first
interpretation of Qatarization might destroy or debilitate the team spirit, which may result in counter-productivity in a large corporation. The work place of a corporation is often diverse, and a team that reflects diversity, according to Loden, has six primary dimensions: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities, race and sexual orientation. [6] In the context of Qatari society, the dimensions race and ethnicity need to be replaced by nationality. What binds these six dimensions is the fact that everyone in the team serves according to their individual merit and gets awarded proportionate to their contribution. Now, if difference exists in terms of benefits and awards between team members based on nationality instead of individual performance and merit, the higher qualified but discriminated persons will lose their work spirit and motivation and won t be able to contribute like they would have contributed in a nondiscriminatory environment. Second, the employees who are benefitting from the unfair advantage might develop an inferior complexity thinking that they can t achieve what they have achieved without preferential treatment. Third, application of the first interpretation has the potential to harm the intended beneficiary of Qatarization policy, and that is Qatar s economy. Preferring nationality ahead of qualification, if less qualified people are employed, they may not be able to fulfill their professional responsibilities competently, which in the long run might affect the economy of Qatar. Now the obvious question pops up: Which interpretation Qatar would chose? I would say Qatar should go for the second interpretation. There was a time, since Qatar s independence till mid 90s, when using the following sentiment of Philosopher Alan Goldman Qatar could have justified preferential treatment in awarding jobs: The rule for hiring the most competent was justified as part of a right to equal opportunity to succeed through socially productive effort, and on grounds of increased welfare for all members of society. Since it is justified in relation to a right to equal opportunity, and since the application of the rule may simply compound injustices when opportunities are unequal elsewhere in the system, the creation of more equal opportunities takes precedence when in conflict with the rule for awarding positions. Thus short-run violations of the rule are justified to create a more just distribution of benefits by applying the rule itself in future years. [7] The synopsis of this statement is: when the opportunities for learning or intellectual training between two competing groups are unequal, the disadvantaged group may be allowed to benefit from preferential treatment temporarily with a view of just distribution of employment opportunities. Until mid 90s, the Qataris did not have much access to worldclass education comparing with that of the expatriates. Also the Qataris didn t realize that they need to have the control of their economy in their own hand. However, the scenario has changed after the establishment of Education City, which now facilitates the Qatari student to receive world-class education. With this access to world class
educational facilities in Education City, Qatar is no longer in a position to defend the preferential treatment citing that Qatari students do not receive education same as that of expatriate students in terms of quality. Also opting for the second interpretation would allow Qatar to achieve the following two objectives: Make sure that Quality Qatarization remains restricted not only in official rhetoric, but comes into reality. To maintain the delicate balance between achieving development goals and maintaining its national identity without hurting the rights of expatriates, as noted by Dr. Ibrahim Ibrahim, the Secretary General of General Secretariat for Development and Planning (GSDP), Qatar. [8] Since the inception of Qatarization, Qatar has emphasized on achieving Quality Qatarization through the process of sponsoring Qatari students and offering various training to them. No doubt these initiatives are helpful in upholding the quality, but these initiatives are not enough. Time has come to inspire Qatari students to compete with international students, because the sense of competition is one of the essential factors that help sharpening the skills students master during the time they spend in universities and colleges. Also, instilling this sense of competition would help Qatari students to think in broader context. When they will go overseas, they will be prepared to accept the reality that survival is the fittest. When competition will be open and inspired, both the Qataris and expatriates will know that perseverance, merit and competence will take precedence of nationality, and consequently both parties will be happy and the delicate balance will be achieved. Although the policy makers of Qatar may strongly claim that interpretation of Qatarization policy has always been consistent with the second interpretation, not much data has been made available for the public to believe this claim. The existing notion among the public, especially among the expatriates is that even though Qatarization do not impose preferences outright, the current interpretation of the policy at least countenance preferential treatment. Since the economic interest of Qatar depends on the proper interpretation of Qatarization, and since both interpretations have pros and cons, Qatar needs to introduce more transparency in their interpretation of Qatarization. Aside from making this policy interpretation transparent, Qatar Government needs to establish an independent overseeing commission consisting of sociologists, political scientists, economists and policy experts to keep track of the quality of Qatarization. Time will say how Qatar will realize the challenge of transparency and independent supervision and successfully nationalize the workforce through Qatarization policy.
Works Cited [1] Unknown Aurthor. What is Qatarization? <http://www.qatarization.com.qa/qatarization/qatarization.nsf/en_pages/en_aboutqatarization_whatisqatarizatio n> (Website Accessed on November 6, 2008) [2] Unknown Aurthor. Qatarization. <http://www.qatarization.com.qa/qatarization/qatarization.nsf/en_pages/en_aboutqatarization_whatisqatarizatio n >(Website Accessed on November 6, 2008) [3] Unknown Aurthor. Mandatory Qatarization in One Year. Pub. March 24, 2008. <http://chartsandnumbers.com/2008/03/24/ mandatory-qatarization-in-one-year > (Website Accessed on November 8, 2008) [4] Unknown Aurthor. Affirmative Action: Equality s Rule. Pub. December 28, 2001. Rev. March 4, 2008. Free Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. < http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/affirmative-action/> (Website Accessed on November 11, 2008) [5] Unknown Aurthor. Affirmative Action: The Controversy Engaged. Pub. December 28, 2001. Rev. March 4, 2008. Free Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. < http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/affirmative-action/> (Website Accessed on November 11, 2008) [6] Loden, M. and Rosner, J B. Work Force Amaerica! Managing Employee Diversity Homeland IL: Business One [7] Unknown Aurthor. Affirmative Action: Rights and Consistency. Pub. December 28, 2001. Rev. March 4, 2008. Free Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. < http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/affirmative-action/> (Website Accessed on November 11, 2008) [8] Elshamy, Anwar. Goals-Identity balance sought <http://www.gulftimes.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=251030&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16> Accessed on November 7, 2008) (Website