Why "temporary?"

All the talking heads are talking about nationalization of the banks, but even those who think it is necessary agree that nationalization should be temporary.   But why should it be temporary?  "They" say, in effect, the government doesn't do it (run banks) good.  Really?  Why can't it?
 
E. Schumaker, of Small is Beautiful fame, wrote of his experiences on the British Coal Board, back when coal was to some extent nationalized, about how efficiency and creativity by government managers was sabotaged by political pressure from the private sector that kept raising the specter of "unfair competition" from the government.  Ha.
 
It may be that there are indeed good reasons for any such nationalization to be temporary, but in the current context a discussion about the specific merits and demerits of government ownership of the banks (or any other major feature of the economy), would be, to say the least, interesting.  Shopworn ideological generalities about "government inefficiency"--or the virtues of the "free market"--are worse than useless  They cut off real thought about the situation. 
 
On another note, there's a thing called "particpatory economics" referenced here:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
 
that I have been interested in off and on.  Economists Michel Albert and Robin Hahnel have outlined a practical vision of how to implement a form of democratic socialism.  I say "practical" advisedly.  It is practical in that it provides a specific, real world mechanism for implementing a socialist society.   The difficulty with the vision is there seems to be little room for what Trotskyists might call a "transitional program."  It seems to me it has to be implemented all at once for it to work.   They recognize this and there is a reference in the wikipedia entry to something called "paripolilty" that I have yet to check out. 
 
I would be curious to know what anybody thinks about Albert & Hahnel's ideas. 
 
http://gg9-tto.blogspot.com/