In my view
Political will
The questions that may be asked here are: what adds to the levels and degrees of convictions about moral clarity of a government? Is it overwhelming majority support given in election? Is it the fact of coming into power more than once? Or is it the maturity attained in respect of governance that allows politicians to focus more single-mindedly on matters of high public interest? If it is the last then the decisions taken will have significance beyond their immediate impact.
It is de rigueur to ascribe lack of will for many of the failures in governance, particularly in respect of changes and reforms that are deemed to be in greater public interest. The criticism implicit here is that a government opts for the short run keeping political dividends in view. Seen in this light an elected government in democracy often seems to indulge in crass opportunism and gross expediency, ignoring 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number', as Jeremy Bentham would have said. Lack of political will to introduce changes or implement reform that affect different groups variously, take into consideration not only the number of people likely to be adversely affected, also their political strength. In ignoring social morality measured by 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' a government that lacks political will in fact gives in to 'natural rights' of the few having vested interest. Political will thus becomes crucial in resolving the conflict between vested interest entrenched in the status quo and the promotion of general welfare contingent on change and reforms.
In making policy decisions a government not only considers the merit of the decisions, but also the reactions that might be forthcoming from various segments of the public. Concerned with popularity, a government's natural inclination is to shy away from unpopular decisions even if unpopularity is apprehended from a limited number of people. If the group is organized, vocal and is easily visible, it acquires strength beyond its number. It often becomes difficult for an elected government to ignore their destabilizing potential, particularly if the opposition is on the lookout to seize any opportunity to undermine its popular support.
It is, however, not inevitable that a government will always be paralyzed by the fear of backlash and desist from taking hard decisions. What allows a government to forgo the path of least resistance and embark on bold initiatives even at some risk can be an interesting study in democracy at work. It is for this reason that certain policy decisions taken by the present government need to be analyzed to find out their deeper and long-term significance in term of governance qua governance.
The first case to be discussed is the decision of the present government to ban the production and sale of polythene bags to prevent environmental pollution. The decision, first taken in 1994, affected two organized groups, viz. the manufacturers and their employees. They were urban based and clearly visible. They could spend money in support of their group interest. The decision was taken because of the campaign by the environmentalists and the conviction of the government about the desirability of the ban to promote general public interest. It was postponed for two years to allow the manufacturers to recoup their investment, an argument that had a good deal of justification. But the reprieve continued beyond two years and almost became permanent. Being aware of the past decision, realizing the adverse consequences of prolonged use of the impugned item and in the face of renewed demand from environmentalists the government decided to implement the ban. The moral high ground taken by the government based on its conviction about "greater public interest" and the continuing campaign by the environmentalists can be seen to have combined to strengthen government's determination to implement the decision. The government showed political will to bring about change in status quo ignoring the interest of an organized group for the sake of the interest of the many. It is a qualitative improvement in governance.
The second case where political will was shown to prevail involved the ban on three wheeler vehicles using two-stroke engine. Polluting air, particularly in the traffic-congested capital, these vehicles had been under severe criticism from environmentalists, health specialist and the media. Being large in number and operating all over the capital, drivers of three wheelers had both financial and physical strength to influence any decision regarding them. This only increased cynicism among the environmentalists who almost gave up in resignation concluding that such a powerful group who could wreak disaster on the roads of Dhaka was 'untouchable'. But much to their disbelief and the relief of the endangered public the present government took a firm decision to impose bans and implement it in phases. The use of phases was seen by many as a ploy to postpone the ban or even allow the vehicles to ply indefinitely. But from the first day of the New Year Dhaka roads have been cleared of the hazardous vehicles. It has been a remarkable achievement deserving praise and appreciation from all irrespective of political affiliations. One more example of government acting firmly based on its conviction about moral clarity has thus been established. The role played by the media and the environmentalists should be recognized here. But unless the government was convinced about the desirability of the decision only pressure or campaign from a quarter would not have been effective, particularly when the risk was so obvious.
The decision to ban rickshaw from Mirpur to Kalabagan in Dhaka may also appear as a minor one, but this need to be considered along with the above two instances of public policymaking because of similarities in terms of impact on an identifiable group (rickshaw pullers) and their ability to frustrate the government decision. In taking this decision the pressure from a donor may have been a factor but this alone cannot be enough to explain. The chaotic condition of traffic in Dhaka has been repeatedly highlighted in newspapers as well as by city planners for a long time. When the VIP Road was made out of bounds for rickshaws there was no pressure from donors. It (donor pressure) may, therefore, be considered as a coincidence and not the only factor contributing to the decision. Exercise of political will reflected in the decision can be interpreted as part of the maturity in governance by an elected government that feels confident to take even a risky decision. It helps when demand from media and civil society provides the background and initial stimulus. Donor pressure strengthens the initial homegrown campaign and may hasten what is inevitable.
The decision to close Adamjee Jute Mills brought political will of the government into even sharper focus because of the enormity of the decision and its possible social, economic and political consequences. Adamjee being the largest of the jute mills was a major consumer of raw jute and employed thousands of workers. It is still being argued by critics of many hues as a wrong decision taken under pressure from a multi-lateral institution. For sentimental reasons and on the basis of human consideration such criticism is only natural. But the issue involved is public interest in general and not that of a group, far less of sentiments. Adamjee was chronically incurring loss and because of that its workers had been given notice long ago along with compensation. The decision was not taken suddenly nor without justification. With the public sector enterprises incurring annual loss amounting to Tk.900 million and with their bank debt totaling Tk 60 billion, there is no alternative to divestment or closure. Closure of Adamjee is major breakthrough for the rationalization of the public sector. It is in the national interest to rid the economy of dead weights. Governments in the past failed to demonstrate political will in taking 'unpopular' decisions, which has constrained economic performance. The decision to close down Adamjee should be seen as part of a process to rejuvenate the economy through downsizing the public sector. In this almost clinical operation there is no room for sentiments or demagoguery.
It also does not serve the cause of greater public interest to lay the blame with donors. Even without outside pressure the government, any government, would have been forced to take such a decision. It is a rare but much needed demonstration of political will asserting over expediency and compromise. More than in the previous cases, the decision on Adamjee may become a watershed, marking the coming of age in governance in Bangladesh.
The questions that may be asked here are: what adds to the levels and degrees of convictions about moral clarity of a government? Is it overwhelming majority support given in election? Is it the fact of coming into power more than once? Or is it the maturity attained in respect of governance that allows politicians to focus more single-mindedly on matters of high public interest? If it is the last then the decisions taken will have significance beyond their immediate impact. The very style and content of governance can be expected to change embracing a wider area in the public domain. This, the enduring significance and long term consequence, should not be lost because of the sporadic and seemingly minor nature of the decisions.
For the policy decisions mentioned above, where political will have been seen at work to promote greater public interest, the incumbent government should be commended. The main opposition party should also be given credit because through silence it gave tacit support. In a welcome departure from the negative politics, with which opposition has come to be associated for quite sometime, the major opposition party did not try to fish in troubled waters. It too exercised political will.
Hasnat Abdul Hye is a former secretary, novelist and economist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments