Akhtar Husain Khan :
What is Bangladesh’s main problem? Food? Maybe not anymore. I said `maybe’, because although recently some rice has been earmarked for export, instances are aplenty to show that a good percentage of the population remains half-fed. True the famine of 1974 has not recurred; and possibly the poorest also get a morsel or two a day, but compared to the middle-income countries, our average food-intake remains noticeably lower.
Education is one thing where strides have been made; and if universal primary education is the goal, it should be completely achievable not very far from now. Higher education is a different story though.
There are other issues that would also figure prominently in the list of consideration. Theoretically there is free medical facility for the whole population; and the number of people sleeping on city streets and railway platforms and launch stations has also come down. Half-clad people are not many.
However, unemployment remains a major problem. Young men deserve plaudits for their steadfastness and ability to cope with disheartening situations. They have come up with innovations for earning a livelihood at home. Yet many millions have gone abroad for jobs and thousands have perished in unknown waters for a journey to promised lands.
Inside the country, as politicians and their followers under different names and shades fight it out on streets and intersections and on newspaper columns and TV talk-shows as also in drawing rooms and tea-stalls on how people should elect their representatives. Behind all these, serious issues relating to governance per se appear to take a back-seat.
Take the case of police or others in various names going trigger-happy in combating `trouble-makers’. They seem to go an extra mile in showing their faithfulness to those who appointed a good percentage of them breaking long-established rules of quota. As statistics published by a Bengali daily suggested, only two of the 64 districts bagged nearly half the thirty-two thousand new entrants to the force in the period between 2009 and 2012, while their share could have been around only one thousand. If people go amathematical so glaringly in such small matters as maintaining district quota, then their performance in more serious calculations on issues of good governance portend disaster. As such, the issue of governance cannot take a back seat, because it gets into every other sphere from food to unemployment, from rule of law to universal health care to education.
Bangladesh’s most recent narrative with good governance started in the second half of 2006, when the government agreed to initiate a number steps to combat corruption and usher in good governance. In 2007, the Adviser for Finance and Planning of the military-sponsored government (MSG) spelt out in more concrete terms in a letter to donors its commitment to usher in a broad range of reforms and restructuring. It included among others, a National Integrity Strategy (NIS), establish a National Integrity Action Committee based on the NIS, prepare action plans in line with United Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) that Bangladesh had signed in February 2007 and raise cadence of anti-corruption activities with necessary reform of rules and outreach program with the community.
Guarantees were also given to the donors for conduct of vulnerability to corruption assessment in selected ministries and offices, submission of wealth and asset statement by the all civil servants under the Government Servants Conduct Rules 1979, gazette publication of Right to Information Act, new promotion procedures in Bangladesh civil service as also review the existing civil service quota system, evaluate Official Secrecy Act 1923 and Government Services (Conduct) Rules 1979, gazette amendments to the 1976 Port Ordinance, citizens report cards in selected sectors to address grievances at the local level, gazette legislation for a Whistleblower Protection Act, regular monitoring of public complaints and grievances, and establishing a well-resourced office of the ombudsman.
On the judiciary side, quite a number of activities were pledged, such as moving recruitment function from PSC to JSC for judges, asset and wealth declaration of all district court judges, monitoring of district courts, capability development plans in the judiciary, performance indicators for judiciary, an independent prosecution service, legislation prescribing specific qualifications for the recruitment of High Court judges, and publication of regular reports on the annual state of the Judiciary.
All the above were either being done during the MSG or taking some form or shape during that period. However, with the establishment of constitutional government, things came to resemble something like a river in its moribund shape on a flat plane. There was less speed in addressing the issues.
Why do politicians want to be in power only and not fulfil the broader agenda that they put down in ink before every poll? In our winner-takes-all system, there is no shorter route to prosperity other than being in power. No other proof is required than the case of a functionary in the 2009-2013 cabinet whose wealth had gone exponentially high. His case is being investigated by ACC.
People can ask questions about ACC’s fallibility or the opposite of it in the face of politicos. Is it functioning in the way it should or does it keep its head high and dust-free? Or Can it under the existing circumstances? Some people would extend that to the judiciary itself given its current way of picking people without any rules and guidelines.
The question of port use is a matter serious importance. Workers at Mongla Port decide how many heads must attend a particular container irrespective of need, while at Chittagong Port, local politicians either publicly decry installation of modern equipment to hasten handling of goods. Time for ship-handling, which had come to a minimum at some point during the two-year MSG from its height previously, has now increased through `democratic’ and `elected’ governance. If elected governance is directly proportional to the rise in time required for ship-handling at ports, democracy will soon require new definitions.
Besides, this has to be judged against the background that there is now serious talk and preliminary steps being taken about a deep-sea port. If a shallow-sea port cannot be managed, only providence can decide what we would do with a deep-sea one.
No doubt, some of the thirty-four or so milestones, agreed by the MSG, have been arrived at during constitutional rule. However, introspection would show that only those innocuous ones have been allowed to happen that do not take away an iota of real power from the elected representatives. The National Integrity Strategy is now there, but many of its offshoots are yet to take shape. The Right to Information Act has been retained, but will take ages to percolate its real benefits down the line, like what economists term trickle-down effect of prosperity for the poor.
Similarly, who among the politicos cares whether PSC or JSC recruits judges for the lower judiciary? A permanent attorney service will not happen, although the MSG had issued an ordinance to the effect. Similarly under existing circumstances, nobody will allow rules to be framed for recruitment in the higher judiciary. The ACC will not change much despite the ranting of its top brass,
A huge advancement has taken place in mobile telecom and digitalization. Our young people have sensed new horizons in mobile phones and internet. This journey to modern thinking accounts for a giant leap in their lives. Whoever pulls them back will be unsuccessful. It is on the shoulders of these young people that the future of Bangladesh lies. Good governance in all its manifestations could give these young men a tremendous fillip.
