Some thoughts on donors and reforms

Discussion on law and order, violence, criminisation of politics etc. took place in a manner as if it were held in the Assembly enthusiastically participated by the MPs of both the ruling and opposition parties. Our governments are accustomed to this type of discussion in the BDF meetings and it is now out of place to question if the donor partners have any right to harp on it. Better to mind our politicians if this culture of discussion between the donors and governments could be used to usher in fruitful political reforms in our administration.

Mere holding elections constitutionally and democratically does not any way guarantee establishment of democracy in governance. The brutal fact is that our governments appear intensely dictatorial and undemocratic. Never short of being at par with the ruling parties are our major opposition political parties. Result is that both combine gleefully to give rise to occasions like April 30 deadline. In our politics such disasters are bound to occur routinely.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

True, in an independent country it is the exclusive privilege of the people to decide upon how their legislature, judiciary and executive will function. Any sermon on it by outside countries tantamounts to interfering in internal affairs. But the unpleasant truth is that Bangladesh being a developing country has had to be content enjoying limited sovereignty as resulted from its continuous dependence for over three decades on foreign aid.

In the earlier meetings of BDF also people noticed the donors and government talking about good governance, law and order, fighting corruption etc. Amusingly, when facing the mediamen the finance minister expressed his disgust at the donors' interference in the internal affairs of the country. More interesting is that our political leaders, when in power, get irked at what they allege as donors' undesirable interference in domestic affairs and on the other hand, when in the opposition, derive immense delight at the sermons the donors deliver. From the birth of Bangladesh the donors have emphasised upon the need for good governance for achieving poverty reduction, better human rights condition, higher GDP etc. The basics of development like transparency, accountability, good governance, people's participation etc have got coined in the aid literature of the donors.

It is open that a substantial chunk of donors' grants are eaten up by corrupt political leaders, bureaucrats etc. Further the projects undertaken for development are not sometimes meant for welfare of the people in a broader perspective but taken to satisfy narrow personal, parochial ends.

Our politicians are ruled by mindset of medieval feudalism. Our bureaucracy, diplomatic corps are fouled up by nominations, extensions, contracts, OSDs etc of staggering proportions.

Constitutional guarantees for separation of powers, independent judiciary, decentralisation of powers, strong local govts, independent anti-corruption commission, independent election commission, independent public service commission, strong human rights commission, political parties registration act, ombudsman, free information flow etc are prerequisites for good governance. Do these exist in Bangladesh? Whereas in matter of separating judiciary from executive Supreme Court's decreed timeframe is violated routinely by all govts, no matter if led by BNP or AL, on flimsy grounds seeking time.

Pressed by circumstances, the government has undertaken to frame an anti-graft commission. True, there is also an election commission. But under existing laws and feudal attitude of the politicians and public officials there is little chance that these organs would be able to operate freely. As for instance, in the recently held Pourasabha elections the Chief Election Commissioner himself wrote to the prime minister seeking help of the army in the polls. But it came to nought.

Ershad was an unelected military dictator. Many allege that in the existing rules the prime minister is no short of an elected dictator. The MPs have had practically no liberty to act independently according to dictates of conscience and fairness of things. As for example, article 70 of the constitution debars one lawmaker from voting on any issue against his party under threat of losing his parliamentary seat.

Bangladesh has been branded as the top corrupt country for consecutive three times and placed amongst bottom countries with worse human rights record. Some raise the question what moral authorities do the US, UK have to advise us in matter of human rights as these countries themselves are grossly accused of defaming human rights. The whole world was horrified to see how brutally and sadistically the war prisoners of Iraq were treated. Still like silver lining in a cloud some redeeming features cannot possibly elude our attention. Firstly, doesn't it speak of the free media of those countries that splashed those scenes of abuse? Secondly, is there any quarter within their land to threaten the media of dire consequences? Thirdly, have the governments of those countries indulged to question the patriotism of the concerned mediamen? Fourthly, haven't the release of the news pressurised the President of the US and PM of UK to offer apology?

The finance minister, in a bid to hide the gravity of our existing violence and killing spree, has referred to the high-scale acts of violence in day to day life in the developed countries. What he fails to admit is that our country's violence, killings are wholetogether different from those of the developed countries in as much as our violence, killing are largely politically-linked that brings it close to state terrorism.

It is widely publicised that had Bangladesh improved its governance, law and order, corruption, it could attain a higher GDP like 7/8 per cent. That may not be untrue. But does it ensure any better life for the great multitude of people in the lower strata? In fact the gross defective distribution system in our economy will contribute to making rich people more rich and poor people more poor.

World Bank's Vice-President Praful S Patel had rightly pointed out that what positive results Bangladesh had achieved in food production making a population of 14 crore self-sufficient in food were no credit of the political leaders or the bureaucrats. This is exclusively the achievement of the poor peasants themselves. There is a section of intellectuals who question if the target group of the development agenda of the donors is the destitute millions? In fact, the development that does not cut the lower tier of the population may at best be bragged about as "shining development" against the core truth of "basic development". The BJP alliance govt of India boasted of this sort of development ignoring the teeming poor in rural areas.

New rhetorics, enchanting euphemisms have descended from the mouths of the rich nations upon the hapless third world bloc. The donor countries have courted to be lovingly called as 'development partners'. But old habits die hard. Our finance minister may have tasted their sweet stings that forced him to say that if the country could avoid confrontational politics and mobilise internal resources much of dependence on donors could go. But mere pronouncement is not enough. Objective approach is the key.

A R Shamsul Islam is retired Principal, Govt Mohila College, Pabna