Kleptocracy and patriotism

Finance Minister Saifur Rahman in his address at a hospital foundation-laying ceremony in Moulvibazar on March 11 said: "A section of the opposition is conspiring at home and abroad to project Bangladesh as a failed and ineffective state." (Living abroad, I hope I am not being considered a conspirator).

These charges, essentially of treasonous conduct, almost always crop up whenever the Awami League challenges the PM about her family members' alleged corruptions and shenanigans.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

For example, on February 23, just three days before the JJD meetings, lawmaker Jahangir Hossain told the House: "The Malaysian government has imposed a ban on entry of the crown prince (for money laundering). The crown prince tried to build an industrial park in Malaysia by investing thousands of crores of taka."

Lawmaker Mirza Azam has alleged that the PM's son lost $230 million in Malaysia.

Khaleda must realize that engaging in rabble-rousing accusations against AL appeals only to a visceral negative emotion rather than to reasoned views on issues. The opposition's raising voices against former Razakars and their unholy alliances, the ruling party's corruptions and mischief, and advancing reform proposals in the political system are not conspiracies against one's country. It is a fair game in politics.

It is evident that BANJIP (BA= Bangladesh, N= Nationalist, JI=Jamaat-e-Islami, P=Party) will remain allied to maintain election wining strategy, to thwart the EC and CTG reforms proposals, to protect alleged illegal wealth accumulations and to avoid potential imprisonment that is looming, as lawmaker Suranjit Sengupta forewarned unequivocally in the parliament on February 28.

Suranjit proclaimed in unambiguous terms: "The Prime Minister's family is now the richest family in the country." He termed the alliance rule as most inept and ineffective, saying that the country was being "run by a new theory of kleptocracy, looting public money by keeping the people hostage."

Kleptocracy (rule by thieves) is a pejorative, informal term for a government so corrupt that very little or no pretense of honesty remains. In a kleptocracy the mechanisms of government are almost entirely devoted (through politicization) to control of administrative processes in order to amass substantial personal fortunes for the rulers and their cronies and to keep the ruling corrupt in power.

To ascertain if Bangladesh is a kleptocracy, one would ask:

Did the ruling party:

• Leader (Hasina or Khaleda) and her family members become much richer than before becoming prime minister?
• PM's family members take undue advantage by exerting influence and intimidation on public officials and businesses?
• Politician in power accumulate wealth by illegal means?
• Always talk about achieving growth and development but evade responsibility for failures?
• Ignore the voices of opposition, call them conspirators and enemy of growth and development?
• Engage in media bashing and threaten to circumscribe media freedom?
• Promote business culture based more on connections between politicians and the firms than on merit and competition?
• Engage in politicization of public servants to consolidate state power?

If the world's most corrupt administration (five consecutive times) is not a kleptocracy then who else would be bestowed with that dishonour? After all, how many other governments have allowed mega loan defaulters and black money holders to go scot-free?

The casual misuse of state power has reached to such a height that Tarique Rahman, as Hasina challenged the PM in parliament, a BNP office bearer but not a member of the government, inaugurated an air force base and used the chief of National Security Intelligence as his security escort during his recent trip to the US.

If Zia-ur-Rahman, whose reputation for personal honesty was unimpeachable, were alive today, he would have been taken aback seeing that his son is being talked about in parliament in connection with a money laundering scam (though it must be noted here that no direct proof has been proffered for these allegations).

Nevertheless, it is a sad story to emerge which has tarnished the image of the family of the most decorated and admired soldier of Bangladesh.

But getting back to the topic at hand: how can we measure a politician's patriotism? One approach is to examine some aspects of the definition of patriotism as follows:

"Patriotism has connotations of self-sacrifice, implying that the individual should place the interests of the community above their personal interests, and in extreme cases their lives. Patriotism has ethical connotations: it implies that the political community is in some way a moral standard or moral value in itself. The primary implication of patriotism in ethics is that a person has more moral duties to fellow members of the political community."

Based on this definition, past and present politicians and civil servants who are corrupt lack the ethical and moral fibre required of a patriot. Without house cleaning, Khaleda may not thus play the trump card of patriotism and credibly accuse her opponents of being conspirators against the country. No one I know has ever chastised Hasina and her family for making illegal millions by underhand dealings.

Many of us would be shocked to realize that terrorists and kleptocrats affect a country's economy in many similar ways. Terrorists destroy life and properties, disrupt peaceful living, discourage foreign and domestic investment, retard economic growth and tarnish a country's image.

Doesn't corruption by politicians in power and public servants hurt the country in many of these in a similar way? Of course, terrorism has dramatic shocking impact on the citizens while kleptocrats' adverse impact works slowly on the people and the economy over time.

Conversely, it has been theorized by economist David Weil that: "Some economists argue that a Kleptocratic ruler -- one who is using her position to amass wealth -- would have an incentive to maximize economic growth so that there would be more to steal.

"

Corrupt government, which may not always be an impediment to economic growth, too often talks about growth to divert voters' attention from their mischief to stay in power.

During the period between 1950 and 1990, for example, growth in Japan was not noticeably slacked by a business culture based on connections, often between government officials and the firms they were supposed to regulate, nor was growth in Indonesia markedly slowed down by the corruptions of President Suharto, whose family amassed a fortune of $15 billion.

Be that as it may, our development partners are also our anti-terrorist partners. Can they not be our anti-corruption partners as well? If they were, would they be willing to withhold issuing travel visas to all corrupt officials and politicians, regardless of the political party they represent?

Money laundering is an international crime. If a country declares foreign nationals involved with terrorism as persona non grata, then all corruption-fighting countries should also be willing to declare money launderers and corrupt officials as persona non grata.

Why do we not demand this of all foreign embassies in Bangladesh?

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.