False arguments and falsifying failures?

Allow me to delve deep into the dynamics of analysing the performance of a particular government. It may be noted here that if my submissions were "biased" because I had overlooked the "brilliant" performances of the present government then, by the same token, Mr. Khan's submission could also be termed as "biased" as it only criticised the last Awami League (AL) government without any appreciation of the works done during 1996-2001.

I think that every government does some good and some bad works. The moot concern should be the relative weight of the good and the bad. My personal observation is that a rational writer has a duty to raise the issue of the weaknesses of the government if only to enable it to improve its performance. There are a lot of institutions and instruments available to learn about the so-called successes of the government. Among them are, for example, the press and electronic media under the government's control, the sycophants living under the government's support, the party activists, the ministries, etc. Therefore, unless some one is a "free lunch" writer who digs out deals from government, one should try one's utmost to air the ailments instead of praising the government.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Just think of one issue -- corruption. Mr. Khan is of the view that Bangladesh emerged as champion in corruption during the last AL regime. If for the sake of brevity we take the argument as truth, we must say that out of five years in office, the dishonour was bestowed only once. But compared to that, during the last four years of the present government's tenure, the "championship trophy" came to our country for the fourth time, and if it happens for the fifth time during the tenure of the present government, we shall have to live with that. Second, if we were champions in corruption during AL time and we continue to be so till now, then the degree of deviation from the past norm appears to be zero. But, as Mr. Khan and we all know, the present government assured us that, once in power, they would uproot corruption from the society. This is false hope and not achievements falsified.

Third, during the AL regime, no complaint could be heard against any minister on charge of corruption. But during the last four years, we heard complaints of corruption against ministers. For example, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Transport raised figures against the communication minister and his ministry for the alleged corruption relating to CNG taxis and other issues. The Danish embassy pinpointed a particular minister and ministry for alleged involvement in bribes. The state minister for energy was sacked for alleged association with Niko on monetary deals. We can, perhaps, show a few other examples, but suffice it to say that we noticed no exemplary punishments against those involved in corruption. It should clearly be borne in mind that one of the most important (in fact the only one) determinants of corruption is that corrupt people do get way with their corruption.

One can perhaps raise a few questions on the deteriorating law and order situation. Mr. Khan argued that during the last AL government the then leader of the opposition Begum Khaleda Zia was attacked (and Mr. Khan accompanied her during the time of occurrences) on her way to different places. We continue to denounce such attempts any time and anywhere. But that cannot be compared with grenade attack heralded on August 21 to kill the leader of the present opposition and her party colleagues. The extra agencies created recently with the motive of containing terrorism are criticised on the ground that they resort to extra judicial-killing that goes against human rights. Could we ask a question: how many BNP MPs and intellectuals were killed during AL regime and how many such AL supporters have been killed so far during the last four years?

These days, The Daily Star has been carrying out an evaluation of the ministers and ministries. If the newspaper is considered as non-partisan and if we assume that Mr. Khan has time to go through the pieces, one could easily conclude that during the last four years, the energy ministry was in shambles, the local government institutions under the aegis of LGRD were destroyed, and other ministers and ministries could not live up to their expectations. We saw that during the municipal election of Sandip Pourashava, not a single voter turned out for fear of terrorism -- a record in the arena of electoral attempts in this country. We saw, and continue to see, how helpless the CEC could turn out to be under the present government.

The Daily Star report cards on ministers and ministries do not seem to deviate much from what we tend to write in our columns. But as opposed to Mr. Khan's thesis of “achievements falsified,” the reality on the ground rides on a different horse. The inflation rate is ever high at nearly 10 per cent, the growth rate in the economy hovers around 5.3 per cent per year which is not higher than in the pervious regime. During the last AL government, the growth rate of GDP rose from an average of 4.7 per cent to an average of 5.6 per cent. But no progress seems to be in evidence on that account during the last four years. Poverty level went down at 1.3 per cent per year during the earlier period compared to 0.50 per cent annually during the present regime. That means, it would have taken us 20 years to eradicate poverty under the earlier pace of poverty reduction, while it will need forty years under the existing pace.

The fact that the pace of poverty reduction has slowed down could be guessed from the fact that the growth rate did not pick up and agricultural and rural development did not fare well. There does not seem to be any coordination among ministries to deal with pervasive poverty. Just take the case of agricultural growth and you will find no remarkable progress compared to the past.

The soaring rise of prices of essentials is a problem. Market economy also worked during the last regime. Why then are the prices of essentials out of reach, especially of the poor, now and were not then? It is, to my mind, because the earlier government could tackle market failures through judicious use of government instruments. There was close coordination among finance, food, agriculture, commerce, and industry ministries, and the ministries worked with much more devotion and efficiency than we seem to see now.

Remember, a market fails when a government fails. The missing market should be searched out in the missing performance of the government. The achievement that during the last four years reserves rose high says little about the current conundrums. If we cannot utilise the reserves to raise investment and the standard of living of the people, we can see that accumulation of reserves is a necessary but not sufficient condition for furthering economic growth.

And last but not least, the rise of fundamentalist forces and their activities during the last four years have been a curse on the nation. We would not, perhaps, blame the government in terms of facing the forces now, but obviously the government has to bear the blame for not having chased away the devil when it knocked on the door long before. The connection of the militant forces with the party in power, as revealed from statements of the arrestees, also points to the growth of these forces under the umbrella of the present government.

Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.