In My View

In Bangladesh, all hands on deck

For a visitor to Dhaka this spring, it is exciting times, especially if the person has an interest in governance, nay forming governments. It seems while the neo-cons in Washington are showing signs of a waning interest in regime changes ‘for freedom’, all the interest groups in Bangladesh have joined the game of making regimes and breaking them with great vigour in the name of ‘good governance.’

Sometimes, for a person unskilled in the ways of Bangladesh it may feel strange how a self-respecting country can allow extra-Constitutional or even extra-territorial players to dabble in the country’s domestic political scene to the extent of setting directions for its polity. But that is only half the story.

Many would sigh at this stage and shake their heads, lamenting the fate of aid dependent LDCs (Less Developed Countries). But hang on! Hasn’t Bangladesh’s economy grown over five per cent consistently in the past decade? Isn’t there an untold and a rare story of a macroeconomic success notched up by the Word Bank (Bank) and International Monetary Fund (Fund)? So how is it that individual government like the USA, the UK or even India has the ultimate leverage to change Bangladesh’s heads of government?

As the folklore in Dhaka goes, the sequence of events leading up to the regime changes of ‘caretaker’ governments showed signs of a starkly different script. This time the usual suspects for the role of ‘change agents’ in Bangladesh – the army – did not want to become so proactive. Till they received an epistle from the venerable United Nations (UN) threatening their tax-free lifeline of personal riches through peacekeeping and peacemaking operations in more troubled areas of the world. Now, here is the kicker. That letter supposedly did not originate in New York where the UN is safely ensconced currently under the care of the South Korean champion of democracy, Ban Ki-moon.

The letter had apparently originated from the office of the country director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – normally the UN’s plenipotentiary in any developing country – in Dhaka. The UNDP head had at hand the US ambassador, Ms Patricia Butenis and the UK High Commissioner, Anwarul Chowdhury egging on.

Once the army was activated to pave the way for another government, this time headed by an economist, Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed, who had worked 22 years in the Bank, an open season was declared in Bangladesh’s politics. Talks abounded about how the two contending political families of the country will be exiled; how a new party would be formed comprising civil society cohorts out to do good; and how happiness would prevail in Bangladesh ever since they adopt the ‘Citizen’s Charter’, duly vetted and approved by the Bank-Fund combine. Of course, there is this little matter of the US government playing the pied piper to the venerable multilateral financial institutions.

So, what does all this lead up to? Consider this. Bangladesh is a country of 150 million people, an overwhelming majority of whom are Muslims. This is the only Muslim nation which was created not on the basis of a common religion but on the basis of a common ethnicity. It has a majority population, which is poor and illiterate. Decades of malgovernance has not allowed the growth of lasting institutions that could foster the independent spirit of the people and harness it for national progress. Post-9/11, the country is on the throes of embracing Islamic militancy, which could quickly transmute into Islamist terrorism, destabilising the South Asian region.

In this complex reality, lay the seeds of a picture perfect potential for an attempt at benign and orderly nation building that was denied to Paul Wolfowitz in Iraq when he was the US deputy secretary of defence. As the Bank president, the temptation must have been too much to resist. In other words, Bangladesh seemed ripe for some intervention from parts of the world that have globe girdling interests, fighting a ‘War on Terror’.

Such had been the abject failure of the domestic political forces of the country, that when those extra-territorial interests really played their cards, people of the country felt relieved. Even the president of the Bangladesh Communist Party (BCP) felt it difficult to criticise the Emergency that was declared; for he felt that the political impasse reached in December, 2006-January, 2007 was unbreakable without this intrusion.

Yet, now that the country has reached an important crossroad, the next task is choosing the correct bivouac. Should it be the same Bank-Fund model that has made Bangladesh into, what one of its leading economists, call a ‘monocultural economy?’ Almost the only manufacturing the country does is of readymade garments. And the only crop of significance it produces is paddy. Someone less experienced in the Bank-Fund ways could ask, why? Because the all powerful Market demands that Bangladesh remains mired in a 19^th century economic model.

So during the rule of General Hossain Mohammad Ershad, when Bangladesh fully embraced the Bank-Fund model of economic growth in its entirety; state-owned enterprises in jute and textile sector were privatised at throwaway prices so that their assets could be stripped and their owners enriched.

In these circumstances, when India faces the prospect of being categorised as an imperialist power by the otherwise minuscule BCP, thus situating it in the exalted company of the USA and the UK, it would be interesting to watch what policy alternatives New Delhi developes to guide its relations with a proximate neighbour. It should keep in mind the warning of the BCP president told to this writer, “Please remember about the Bangladeshi belligerence, which when aroused could throw any experimentation in the deep end of the Bay of Bengal.”

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. And he can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in