Role of individuals in policy making

Apart from the fact that these policies are not formed in the abstract, sometimes it is forgotten that almost always the people in power with their prejudices and pre-conceived notions dictate these policies as they interpret the policies that they think will serve the state's interests.

In a democracy, such formulation and implementation of policies are acceptable because the people have delegated the power to a group of people to decide on their behalf. Reluctance of people like Henry David Thoreau to surrender all his power to a select group is uncommon. But intrusive inspection by both the opposition political parties and civil societies are essential in developing countries like Bangladesh where almost always politics is used to conduct public affairs for private gains.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

If the world today has become fractured into camps of haves and have-nots, affluent West and the poverty stricken East, of theological conflicts both inter and intra-religion, of men from Mars and from Venus, of "new sovereigntists" having scant respect for international law and others less powerful who have to depend on international law to safeguard their abridged sovereignty, it is because the people in power at any given time decide to interpret what is best for their country.

One wonder if in the year 2000 Vice President Al Gore had been elected the US president instead of George W Bush, then perhaps Iraq invasion would not have happened and regime change would not have entered into the lexicon of global leaders. Perhaps the cartoon controversy surrounding Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), race riots in France and in some Western European countries, and the Pope's undiplomatic remarks about Islam in his speech at the University of Regensburg, to mention a few, would not have occurred.

Questions would not have been raised about the efficacy of multiculturalism in Western societies where Muslims in particular are now forced to negotiate the borders of second class citizenship in their own countries and where Muslim youth are accused of owing allegiance to countries of their forefathers, countries they have not seen, and where they will be no less alienated than in the countries of their birth.

It was believed in the past that an inverse relationship existed between religiosity and affluence because the poor needed the help of divinity, in Marxian terminology as an opiate and in Freudian sense to explain the ultimate defeat of human knowledge in death, more than the rich. But recent studies have shown that the world is becoming more religious, with the Western world no exception.

The US, the richest and the most powerful nation in the world, as a poster for deeply entrenched religious beliefs. In the 2004 presidential election George Bush received 40% of the evangelist votes (more than seventy percent of the white evangelical votes) because they perceived Bush, among other things, to be more religious than John Kerry. Almost half of the scientific community in the US believe in God in the Biblical sense.

The fact remains that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and his promise not to ever allow any nation on earth to get into an arms race with the US making America the global hegemon are the realities of the day.

But if the neo-cons like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others, who had petitioned President Clinton to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and al-Qaida appeared on the global scene had not been catapulted into power by President Bush, then Madeline Albright's description of tectonic shift in the US foreign and defense policies effected through the change of administration from Clinton to Bush would not have come to pass.

Similarly, if one goes back a little into history one could safely conclude that despite the imperfections of the Treaty of Versailles, but for Adolph Hitler, 20th century history would not have witnessed the massacre, death, and destruction of millions of human lives. These examples strengthen the argument that men in power, more often than not, mould the destiny of their nations and sometimes of other nations as well.

This problem of non-reflection of popular wishes after elections by the people's representatives is more pronounced in developing countries than in developed ones mainly because of the developed countries' people's financial independence of the government, which unfortunately does not apply to developing countries as the government is generally the largest employer and is the sole provider of essential utilities like gas, electricity, water, etc.

The government therefore remains in a position of power to grant or deny the people social goods that are taken for granted in developed societies. Besides, unbridled corruption through violation of societal rules and norms by secret exchange among political, social, and economic markets, resulting in tangible benefits to the parties concerned is a part of the daily life of the people in countries like Bangladesh.

Though the argument has been advanced that functional corruption through oiling rigid political and/or bureaucratic regime for advancement of economic development can be useful, yet this process opens up the possibility of dysfunctional corruption through arbitrary introduction of exogenous elements into the decision making process, distorting efficient allocation of resources and ultimately prove to be regressive for economic growth of the country.

The recent spate of reports in our dailies about deliberate corruption in the energy sector even at the eleventh hour of this government strengthens Transparency International's description of Bangladesh as the most corrupt country in the world. Additionally, public discontent reflected at Kansat, Barapukuria, Shanir Akhra over lack of electricity and water, RMG factories over workers' salaries, strike by Railway Karmachari Sangram Parishad and paralysis of the railway system protesting proposed reform plans are eloquent testimony of the inadequate governance by the present group of people in power.

Perhaps most importantly, the rise of Islamic militancy in Bangladesh can be attributed to the inclusion of Islamist forces as coalition partners in the government. This ahs led to, for example, the regressive decision to make Islamic education equivalent to secular education, thus opening the job market to a large number of ill-equipped personnel who stand little chance in this competitive world.

It is believed that this politically expedient decision was taken to please the two Islamist parties in the coalition. In this milieu it is often forgotten that corporations run by religious fundamentalists in Bangladesh make an annual net profit of twelve million takas of which about ten percent is used for organizational purposes, including running armed training camps.

All these eminently prove the point that the people in power take the ultimate decisions that they perceive to be in the interest of their political agenda, regardless of the fact that such decisions may be out of step with those taken by other countries and ultimately prove to be harmful to the country. It is therefore necessary for the people in power to be cognizant of the real desires of the electorate and act accordingly. Otherwise the same people who elected them will throw them into the dustbin of history.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.