Bangladesh is not a 'failed state'

The August/September issue of Foreign Policy in Spanish contains the results of the first Failed States Index, which has been compiled by the Fund for Peace. As I read the article, my mood changed from curiosity to annoyance and then to anger. I was astounded to find that according to these pundits my country, Bangladesh is a "failed state". Here the word " state" is of crucial importance. They are not referring to a business corporation, a banking institution, a non-governmental organisation, or even a government but to a nation. In one single sweeping statement, they negate the very existence of a proud nation of nearly one hundred and thirty million people. Only rational explanation for making such a drastic statement that I could think of is their complete lack of sensibility for everything non-Western. I hope, it will not be considered too rude to say that one can reach equally painful or even worse conclusions about their so-called developed nations by using a different set of indicators. Anyway, let us first ponder for a moment over the motives behind such studies and then examine the criteria used in the study to arrive at such insulting conclusions.

Although the Fund for Peace claims that " its mission is to prevent war and alleviate the conditions that cause war", its real raison d'etre is the so-called national security of the United States. Fear is the overriding factor that has dominated the foreign policy of the world's only superpower for the last sixty years or so. Fear of external danger has helped to keep the American electorate on edge. It has been used by the American oligarchy (politicians, industrialists and their ideologues) with great skill to maintain its hold on power. Its powerful military-industrial complex ,which sucks up hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money every year, is in constant need of finding new enemies (real or imaginary). Therefore, it must advance fresh theories about the existence of new enemies. (Remember Kissinger's domino theory or Bush's axis of evil theory.) Now we have a new one. " America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones." That was the solemn declaration of the 2002 US National Security Strategy. Hence the Failed States index.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The Fund for Peace has used 12 social, economic , political and military criteria to rank 60 states " in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict". While "mounting demographic pressures, especially population pressures stemming from refugees" figure prominently among the social indicators, "uneven economic development along group lines" is the most important economic indicator. "Criminalisation and/or delegitimisation of the state" and "rise of factionalised elites" are considered as important political indicators. According to this index, " about 2 billion people live in insecure states, with varying degrees of vulnerability to widespread civil conflict". Bangladesh (17th position) is classified as one of the 20 states which have reached a critical condition. Unlike Bangladesh, in most of these countries either civil war is currently raging or has taken place recently( like Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone , Republic of Congo, Somalia, Haiti and Colombia) or which have been subjected to American invasion and are now under American military occupation (like Afghanistan and Iraq).

There is no doubt that Bangladesh is the most densely populated country on earth. But there are no massive movements of refugees or internally displaced persons creating complex humanitarian emergencies. True, there is a significant movement of population from rural areas to urban centres as it usually happens in most developing countries. But in no way does it constitute a danger to the stability of Bangladesh, especially because in most cases the migrant workers maintain close contact with the villages they come from. Although there are sizeable illegal emigrations to India and elsewhere, there are no massive refugee flows inside the country. High density of population does not necessarily lead to civil unrest if the economy is strong enough to feed the people.

Despite all the difficulties like the politically motivated hartals, too many trade unions who do not always fight for the interests of the workers and corrupt government officials, the economy is growing at an average rate of 5 per cent per year. Here, one must pay tribute to the hard-working and resilient people of Bangladesh , who are its best asset. Birth control measures have been quite effective and current fertility rate is acceptable. The factor which the Fund for Peace has failed to take into consideration is the near homogeneity of the Bangladeshi population. Over 90 per cent of the Bangladeshis are Muslims (although with a strong secular undertone), speak the same language and come from the same ethnic background. There are no major racial, ethnic, linguistic or tribal divisions to confront one group against the other. These factors exercise a strong unifying influence on the entire population. Not many countries of the world can boast of these characteristics.

However, this does not mean that everything is fine and dandy. There are severe economic class differences . While in comparison with the past (over a 30 year time frame) most people live better than before, some seem to have become very rich by Bangladeshi standard, whose ostentatious living arouses envy among the less privileged and could eventually become source of social tension. But can this be considered as uneven economic development along group lines as suggested by the Fund for Peace? Uneven economic development takes place everywhere. But here the crucial words are "along group lines". Group lines presumably mean specific racial groups like the so-called whites and blacks in the United States or religious groups like the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland or tribal groups as in many African countries. The privileged class in Bangladesh does not belong to any specific ethnic , racial ,tribal or religious group separate from the ordinary Bangladeshis. Therefore, this indicator can not be applied to Bangladesh.

According to the Fund for Peace, " criminalisation or delegitimisation of the state occurs when state institutions are regarded as corrupt, illegal or ineffective". From a constitutional point of view, Bangladesh is a Parliamentary democracy. After the overthrow of the military dictatorship in 1991, there have been three elections and two changes of government. Unfortunately, despite elections and changes of governments, Parliamentary system of democracy does not function properly because the two major parties are not prepared to accept the rules of the game. They merely use the democratic system to come to power. Lack of internal democracy in the parties and the opposition's insistence on boycotting Parliament, calling hartals and street demonstrations allows the leader of the party in power to exercise near-dictatorial powers. However, this does not make the government less legitimate because unlike some important Western governments, it did not come to power through the back door but through free and fair elections and with the direct mandate of the majority. Allow me to add that despite widespread corruption in state institutions, the government is neither illegal nor ineffective.

While we can rightfully be proud of our open society, democratic spirit , plural political system and free press , we are not so proud of our increasingly polarised society along party lines. This ominous trend is leading to lawlessness and political violence. Recent grenade and bomb attacks on opposition leaders together with hostile Indian propaganda exaggerating the role of Jamaat in Bangladeshi politics have tarnished the image of Bangladesh and I am sure, have contributed to the designation of Bangladesh as a failed state. ( By the way, Begum Zia's anti-Indian rhetoric does not help the situation either. One does not have to love one's neighbours, but from the point of view of real politik , it is advisable to maintain a good working relationship with a neighbour as powerful as India.)

Going back to the increasingly polarised trend in the society -- how can we reverse it? Well, it has to start at the top. The leaders of the two major parties, for the sake of national interest ( as opposed to party interests alone), should shelve their personal animosities and start talking to each other. If they are unable to do so, they should step down or step aside and let the next generation of leaders take charge of the situation. Of course, for that , first of all , it is necessary to introduce internal democracy and foment open debates and discussions inside the parties. Election 2007 could give them a good opportunity to put this idea into practice. The younger people tend to be more flexible and ready to compromise. After all, a truly democratic system depends on compromises and consensus building on important issues for its survival. If political leaders do not even talk to each other, how can there be discussions and negotiations, far less compromises on national issues?

The next political indicator used by the Fund is "progressive deterioration of public services". Excessive politicisation of the bureaucracy and increasing corruption at all levels in most public institutions (including utility services) have indeed eroded the confidence of ordinary people in the administration. Corruption has become so endemic that urgent measures are required to check it. Although the activities of the Rapid Action Battalion have been criticised in certain circles, on the whole its contribution to improve the law and order situation has been very positive. This is true that a lot can be done to improve the level of governance in Bangladesh, but it is not fair to state that all its public services are under progressive deterioration.

"Rise of factionalised elites" is the next criterion used by the Fund . It is quite natural that the elite class in any democratic country is composed of several groups. It is also natural that these groups take their turn in governing the country. It can however, become dangerous when groups are constituted exclusively along racial, religious, ethnic or tribal lines. Members of he Bangladeshi elite class come from the same ethnic, religious , linguistic and educational background. There are no major ideological differences among them either. True, they have different political affiliations. In democracy, it is natural to have more than one political party. I am convinced that younger members of Bangladeshi elites are capable of opening dialogues among themselves and eventually reach agreements on important national issues, provided they are given adequate opportunities.

While Bangladesh has many problems, it is definitely not a failed state and does not pose any threat to the United States. If the Fund for Peace is looking for possible threats to the US, it must look elsewhere. On the other hand, if the mission of the Fund is "to prevent war and alleviate the conditions that cause war" then the Fund should look nearer home. A sincere examination of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world might give it some interesting clues.