Fri 28 Sep 2007
thanks to shonpapri for providing this eye witness account of the evening at the Asia Society in New York.

About 50 AL activists outside shouting for SH’s release. They clench
their fists and shout Joy Bangla each time someone photographs them.
Interestingly no BNP. Mainly professional New York based
professional crowd inside event itself.
Asia Society President (Visakha Desai): “BD is lucky to have you at
this critical juncture. People don’t realize that BD is doing so much
better than other countries in its neighbourhood … Nepal, Myanmar
and Pakistan …They don’t realize that you came in legally as
permitted by the constitution”. She also points out that he is the
second VIP to visit in Asia Society in a couple of days, the other
being Thailand’s leader.
Fakhruddin reads a prepared speech, very academic (keeps talking about
rent seeking as what was destroying Bangladesh before it is clear to
most that he is talking about corruption). Probably recycling what was
prepared for US think tanks and policy makers and not adapting it for
South Asian/BD audience. Outlines why it was essential for his
administration to save the nation because of unbearable status quo
affecting economic growth and impeding BD peoples’ unquenchable thirst
for development, progress etc. Kept re-iterating that elections will
be held by Dec 2008 no matter what.
FA referred to BD having dynamic NGO community, highly energetic and
free press that has no censorship and restrictions, and vibrant
intellectual community all facilitating open exchange of ideas. Soft
murmurs and groans throughout the audience at this point. Likewise
when he refers to a “minor disturbance at the university recently
which got out of hand when vested interests intervened despite the
great restraint shown by govt and army”
BD will never tolerate fanaticism. In fact, his govt is now appealing
to Imams to get involved in spreading message that terror and Islam
are not compatible and especially so in BD. Also, Fakhruddin’s govt is
apaarently responsible in some part at least for declining infant
mortality, rising female employment, etc. Seems a stretch to claim this
in 8 months, more likely follow-through of previous policy.
Fakhruddin was v impressive during Q&A. Skillfully avoided parts of
questions or entire questions and answering his own. Questions
included “As a 2nd generation BD, I’m so impressed that you left
America to go back, what advice would you give us who are thinking of
doing the same”. Followed by AL activist asking “I don’t understand
what is minus two, can you please explain it?” His reply “I don’t
understand it either” (howls of laughter - Fakhruddin won me over at
that point by his speed of response if nothing else). Then standard
questions about NRB voting rights etc.
American think tank representative challenges FA on his statements
about press freedom and mentions Arifur Rahman. Whole room goes
silent. FA’s response (after awkward pause - only time he showed
discomfort the whole evening): “You don’t realize that things could be
a lot worse. We would have been within our rights to have much tighter
controls on media, not that we have any controls at all - press is
totally free. I understand that “some journalist may have been
apprehended” and often this is for his own protection. But this is
nothing that would not have happened at another time as well”.
There was a harsh silence after his response. That was one of the last
questions and the American was surrounded by grateful BDs as the event closed
thanking her for asking the qn. I wonder if they were scared to do the
same, but it was clear that she represented the thoughts of a large #
of the audience
September 28th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
A commendable speech separates Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed from the other leaders who were present there.
We should be proud for being represented by such an educated person in UN and Asia Society.The country needs more of people of his calibre to progress.
For NRB’s young generation the message is clear go back and build the country this is the time.
Lets go back.
thanks
Kawser Jamal
September 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
There are still some very uncomfortable truths existing in this period of military regime in BD and let us not be too quick to forget them.
Why are teachers from Dhaka and Rajshahi University(most of them from the progressive political group) in jail for more than a month? It is unbelievable that these handful of teachers stirred up the country against the government9and knowing many of them for years — I can guarantee this is totally absurd). Yet — the government continues to keep them in jail against such absurd charges. How are they being treated behind the bars? A letter published in Drishtipat by the son of Dr. Anwar Hossain(DU) says they have been physically assaulted apart from the aggrieving expected psychological torture. How can one ignore these facts?
Also — why is no action taken against the wide protests of Mussollis on the streets (it has already happened twice) shouting against the Prothom Alo’s Alpin column that has recently been banned(breaking the joruri awbostha laws)? The police has not beaten them up as they have the journalists, and the students of DU and RU. WHY??
September 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
we are proud of dr.fakhruddin.definitely a welcome break from our illiterate,clueless,incompetent and corrupt AL and BNP pols.sad truth is one of our parties consists of corrupt nouverich businessjen,while the other has only corrupt country bumpkins.as for ‘-2′,we bangladeshis know what it is and time to rejoicr,no matter ehat a small group of bloggers representing/funded by desparate pols in jail may say…
September 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Alice in the wonderland #2,
Please, don’t fool the nation by taking the side of and sympathesizing busted university teahers. Where the country was 5 times consecutive world champion in corruption, it’s too naive to think for being university teachers and/or left-liners they are patriot, honest and innocents. The individuals who are relativey more in the upper echelon of society, the more corrupt, crooked or criminals they are, given they are our fathers, mothers, brothers etc.
We have seen the agitation and street riots or vandanlism, arsion damaging public properties, collusioned with th befallen leaders and parties, to fail the CTG. Thousands of people came out to the streets and tried to wage all-out movement agaist the governement. The event was not soley spontaneous and there were people who took the lead as instigators.
If you, some people lend your support them or get wooed with the dossiers describing their brilliant carriers and innocence, by the sons or daughters of the arrested teachers don’t any way mean they are not non-criminals.
Such support came from DP for jailed Awami League leader Dr. K Alamgir and his son also wrote letter to media and DP published that piece to muster public sentiments in favor of him. But finally we have seen his corruption was proven by the court and sentenced to jail-terms.
BTW, our universities specially Dhaka univeristy is the breeding ground of chadabaj, maastan, muscle-men gang-leadership responsible for corruption and political anarchies in the country.
We should be ashamed of those teachers who leaving aside their primary role as teachers, involve themselves in party politics. Teachers should focus on and put more labor so that the students don’t fail, do best in their academic careers, not the other way round, helping them run after politics, money through extortion and tenderbaji like Aman, Aovi and so on.
Thanks.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I am ashamed that I was represented by someone who thinks that the students of our premier learning institute being battered and bruised by the army and police under his “nominal” command is a minor incident. I really urge everyone to read all the speeches he has given in NY so far. The amount of bad-mouthing he has done to our country and its democratic past is absurd.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Jahed Ahmed has a brief description of the columbia event here
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jahed/Fakruddin_columbia.htm
One thing he mentions from his speech deserves wider discussion.
One very interesting aspect of Dr. Fakhruddin’s speech was his repeated utterance “democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good governance.” (May be, General Moyeen has requested him to make it a point every where he goes to!) “Our democratically elected governments during the past 15 years failed to promote good governance and to protect citizens’ rights. We must accept that while democracy may take various forms and manifestations, its ultimate objective is always the same—the rule of law by the will of people. Democracy must put in place checks and balances against abuses of power and corruption,” said Dr. Fakhruddin during his speech.
Without getting into the argument of which governtment is better and why, is this something that we agree specially after seeing the excesses committed in previous democratic regimes?
Was there in checks in our constitution to halt the mass politicization of all our institutes,judiciary and administration? The rampant appointment of people based on party loyality rather than merit etc. There wasn’t any. The way the system and the election was being framed the party in power was set to be in power for a long time coming and there was nothing in the constitution to stop it from happening. The only path left was resistence from the street which often turned very violent. Had the army decided to play along, we would have seen a winning of voterless election by the party in power and any resistance to that would have been brutally confronted like Burma by the newly elected government. In that light, I think Dr. Fakhruddin’s statement has merit. But alas in order to resolve the issues, the path he has chosen will only see a repeat of street protests, election boycotts and artificial notion of democracy. The political parties are needed to be brought and bought into this process of change.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Mr Kawser Jamal:
“A commendable speech separates Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed from the other leaders who were present there”
How do you know this? Did you hear every speech by the other leaders? Did you read the transcript? How do you know this was better than every other leader’s speech?
We are in this mess not because only of “dui netri” but because the country allowed culture of sycophancy. Removing dui netri doesn’t remove that culture. Worshipping the new order doesn’t remove that fundamental problem which will again allow similar leader problem in future.
People will always interpret such overglowing praise as really an attempt to ingratiate and obtain favors, even if that was not your intention.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
One Blogger above wrote
“The amount of bad-mouthing he has done to our country and its democratic past is absurd”
He did not bad-mouth about our beloved country Bangladesh, but yes he talked about salvaged corrupt system that prevailed in the past where there were no democracy were present but familicracy and autocracy and lootocracy and goondacracy were present in abundance.
Did he do more bad mouting than Sheikh Hasina and Khaledah in comparison. The amount of image destroyed by Hasina in the foreign media for Bangladesh is not compared to any one else. I would like to refresh the people’s mind what did she portrayed Bangladesh as in the last regime? Do you all remember or totally forgot.If Khaledah and Hasina bad mouth the country really they are fine and good and respected and If some one with high education statire and experienched talke about the failed democracy that we had in the past and it’s dark use and misuse of power that is very well counted.What a country we are and what a champion people we have in our country.
Thanks
Kawser Jamal
Be aware of two types of people in Bangladesh
1 Andho unosari(Blind faithful Followers)
2 Andho berodhi(Bling opposer of anything)
September 29th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I think if you look at the issue of politicization of administration, the issue runs slightly deeper than the lacks of checks and balances. For the past BNP government, who were the most controversial appointments? CEC Aziz? A senior Justice of the Supreme Court. There’s nothing wrong in theory about the appointment. If a senior Justice of the Supreme Court still has political inclination, and that’s a big if, then really, the problem goes deeper than blaming our governments. How about Dr. Tahmina Begum, the Chairperson of PSC? Again, one of the most brilliant students of her time, and a respected professor or Rajshahi University. There’s nothing wrong, again, in theory, with this appointment.
There’s a story about a senior civil servant from the time of Shere-Bangla Fazlul Huq. He called Chief Minister Huq, perplexed after receiving several recommendations for different people, all bearing Huq’s name, for the same job. Huq listened to him patiently, then said, “Yes, I did my job by recommending all my constituents and other people whom I owe politically. Now you do your job and pick the best person for the job.” This is how relationship has been for the last fifty years between civil servants and their political masters. Therefore, it’s no use picking up random examples and propagating them as convincing reasons gor regime change. The issue demands greater analysis.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“FA referred to BD having dynamic NGO community, highly energetic and
free press that has no censorship and restrictions, and vibrant
intellectual community all facilitating open exchange of idea
Ans: Is it not Joke to deliver such statement?
I don’t find any difference of him with our so called Political goons. This piece was certainly not for BD Audience.
Actually definition of free press is changed completely by this piece of FUA.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
There is a difference, easily distinguished I believe, between Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia criticizing each other’s administrations, and an unelected technocrat casting compulsions on our entire democratic tradition of the last sixteen years, which involves not just Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, but all three hundred representatives elected to the fifth through eighth parliament, the thousands of men and women who contested in the elections, and the thousands more, who have served in the local government bodies. The first is a common sight in democracies. The second is more common in emerging tyrannous regimes.
I’ve also noticed that it seems to be a favorite ploy of those who support the current regime to cast aspersions on those of us who criticize it. I’d just like to point out this strategy for the facile and childish waste of space and time that it is.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:51 am
[...] drawing a cartoon that elicited feigned outrage from the Islamists and the government. One attendee described the exchange as [...]
September 30th, 2007 at 1:00 am
We’re used to the idea that a non-democracy is a tyranny. Monaco is not a democracy but I think we’d be hard put to call it a tyranny. Hong Kong isn’t either. The Nazis (originally took power democratically and they were certainly a tyranny. And the democracies of the BNP and the Awami League were shambolic.
The point is that democracy, in and of itself, does not exclude the possibility of tyranny, of the trampling of the rights of some of the citizenry.
I agree that it’s the best means to an end, but democracy itself isn’t actually the end. Freedom and liberty are, and we need to be vigilant about the truth that just because something is democratically decided does not make it an advance in human freedoms.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Quite frankly I am getting tired of those who without questoin or further scrutiny are gushing over CTG.
Case in point, Mr Kawser Jamal who identifies “ondho birodhi” and “ondho onushari” as object of derision, but is those very thingsd himself.
Mr Jamal, are you now spokesperson of CTG? What credibility do you have through action rather than “boro boro kotha”? The poster Shonpapri made very clear statement about CTG head ignoring student protest, trrivializing journalist arest of Mr Arifur Rahaman, but you dodn’t address those points, you just speak propaganda. Who takes you seriously or sees you different from chhatro neta who speaks propaganda from campus? If we are to break cycle, we need to be objective and call a spade a spade.
Mr Fakhruddin should expliclty address the difficult questions, not become politician overnight like those of old days, otherwise, his education and experience becomes meaningless overnight.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Also, when reference is made to negative image of BD from Hasina or Khaleda, (#7), can I ask, what is fault of democratic elected leader speaking and being heard? If you disagree, fight through free press, media, etc. Differnet from UNELECTED leader making gross generalization, while those who challenege are arrested without charge or accountablility. Or threatened.
Fakhruddin, CTG, (as well as Hasina, Khaleda, Ershad in past) should remember that free press, independent judiciary etc. are what will protect them in future so they should ensure these are not tampered with. Do you think that whoever takes over after Dec 08 election (if this at all takes place) will spare Fakhruddin, MOinul etc? Who will protect them if new govt comes after them with false charge of corruption etc? At that time, if they want free press, intellectuals, human rights activist to speak up for them, they should not destroy these in now.
FOr, if they establish
September 30th, 2007 at 6:37 am
#8 tacit, good example and analysis. The problem is much deep rooted and beyond band-aid solutions. I am ruminating one of my fundamental question, is financial corruption more detrimental than destroying moral of a society? The 01/11 speech(s) clearly states the backdrop. Will anyone (including His Highness President, Former EC, Former CTG advisors) be brought to justice for creating the mess and lying to their teeth? Either 01/11 speech is a lie or the press notes and speeches of former CTG were lie. Someone should face the justice. While punishing the embezzlement is necessary it should not become smoke screen to hide the much bigger sinners. In my opinion, such a justice will be a much bigger victory and may prevent future unconstitutional takeovers.
Ms. Desai should consult lawyers before making remarks on legality. If she is right, then we would not need any special indemnity about this government and its activity in the future parliament. I am just talking about legality not good or bad. There is an interesting guest lists in her pocket Thailand and then Bangladesh.
Lastly thanks to Dr. F for being such kind hearted and sacrificing their RIGHTS for the people, “You don’t realize that things could be a lot worse. We would have been within our rights to have much tighter controls on media, not that we have any controls at all - press is totally free.” I have to admit educated rulers are very aware of “their rights”.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Re # 13, right, Monaco, Hong Kong, and Nazi Germany. All three, I’m sure, are very similar to Bangladesh. Would you like me to trot out the instances non-democratic governments have equalled tyrannies?
Moreover, that’s not even my argument. I label this government tyrannous through its actions, its suspension of the fundamental rights of citizens, its deployment of the armed forces throughout the country for the last eight months, the well-documented claim that it tortures people, its brutalization of the students of DU and press and electronic reporters of Dhaka, and so on. I don’t label this government tyrannous because it’s not-elected. Like us individuals, this ten advisors and the Chief Advisor who make up this government, legally, probably did not have much control over the circumstances in which it was born. But they should have done better in controlling the actions, because those actions will form the basis through which they are judged for posterity.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Re #16, I agree with SC. The narrative we were hearing between 10/28/06 and 01/10/07 and after 01/11/07 are so diametrically different, that one set must be very, very wrong. We deserve the truth about who was lying.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
The concept of ‘Bangladesh paradox’ is befittingly borrowed from the World Bank’s country assistance stratgey for Bangladesh (2006). WB describes it as ‘Bangladesh conundrum’ implying how the country could achieve a sustained economic growth, inspite of pervasive governance problems.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 am
tacit #17
I label this government tyrannous through its actions, its suspension of the fundamental rights of citizens, its Budeployment of the armed forces throughout the country for the last eight months, the well-documented claim that it tortures people, its brutalization of the students of DU and press and electronic reporters of Dhaka, and so on.
Right on all counts. But what is the difference between a perfect tyranny and a lousy democracy? Not much, if we are talking about the denial of democratic rights.
What previous democratic governments failed to do was distribute the delegation of decision making to local government (upazila) level. You’d expect a tyrannous government to bully the students and curtail press freedom. Conversely, you’d expect a good democracy to strengthen local government and decentralise the executive. Was that a feature in the last 15 years, do you think? Democracy isn’t just about voting once every 5 years to elect a PM.
One of the curious aspects of the new champions of democracy is the mantra “Army is Bad” because of the equation of the Army with the denial of civilian rights, which I accept. But we never hear another mantra, namely: “Bad Democracy is criminal”. In spite of the nationwide denial of democratic rights by the centralisation of power to a handful of power brokers in Dhaka.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 am
Sid,
The difference between a lousy democracy and any kind of tyranny is that the former has a positive probability of improving peacefully over time, the latter only degenerates and leads to violent implosion.
A lousy democracy, given enough time, can become a better democracy in terms of respecting rights and protecting liberty. And the process can be relatively peaceful. It doesn’t have to. There is a possibility that the lousy democracy will degenerate into tyranny - this is exactly what happened to us. But it’s not inevitable either that lousy democracy will become tyranny. In India over the past 60 years, lousy democracy is plodding along. In America over the past 220 years it has been improving - watch The Gangs of New York to see what it used to be like. And in the 1990s, our democracy was also improving. But we were not happy with the pace, and wanted to take a great leap forward. History, unfortunately, doesn’t like short cuts.
Tyranny on the other hand doesn’t respect rights and liberties by definition. And to get those rights and liberties from tyranny often require violent revolutions. And the thing with revolutions is that they more often than not beget more tyranny.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Jyoti,
1) “A lousy democracy, given enough time, can become a better democracy”
Bangladesh never had the luxury to be “given enough time” for ironing out its lousy democracy, which spiralled the nation into a disaster. BD cannot stroll along for 35 years or 220 years to see if democracy works - it was already proven a disaster, while many other natural and demographic disasters are looming.
———
2) “There is a possibility that the lousy democracy will degenerate into tyranny - this is exactly what happened to us.”
Well, What do you do when that happens? what do you do when our super ideology (”democracy”) turns into a lousy tyranny?
The fact is BD needs the FRAMEWORK for democracy to function, which never existed. This CTG is trying to build that framework under a temporary break, so that democracy can resume with a superior endo-skeleton.
So we have a choice between TWO TYRANNIES - a dysfunctional democracy tyranny, or a recovering backbone CTG tyranny. For the immediate future of Bangladesh - we should welconme this tyranny that repairs our democratic backbone - so that we can remain standing, before we can walk, and run for democracy again.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I’m in favour of democracy but, surprise(!), not in favour of tyranny. But I’m not sure I buy your teleological argument of the evolutionary quality of democracy. This argument is framed like this:
1. Evolution improves the subject over time.
2. Democracy is adaptive and evolutionary.
3. Democracy will reach perfection if given enough time.
I don’t buy that for three reasons:
i) Qualitatively, democracy can go backwards as well as forwards both over the medium and long term. See for example the Indian Emergency of 1975 and yet the relatively healthy state of Indian democracy today. Conversely, look at the dire state of US democracy today (illiberal, non-secular, corrupt) as opposed to the state it was in during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.
ii) Democracy does not occur in a vacuum and is subject to the laws of cause and effect, like everything else. The effect of a lousy democracy can very well be a tyrannical theocracy and vice versa.
iii) Utopia is a dangerous, non-secular fallacy.
You say:
And in the 1990s, our democracy was also improving. But we were not happy with the pace, and wanted to take a great leap forward
Are you sure democracy was improving or that, in actual fact, arbitrary fiscal indexes were increasing? Did the extra points in GDP between 1991 and 2006 buy more schooling, jobs and opportunities for Abdul Ghafur and his family in Jhenaidah? Or is Abdul Ghafur still one of the most cheated voters in the history of democracy in 2006, more so than in 1991?
Do you think the BNP and the AL would have even considered to begin the process of electoral reform if left to their own devices? Or would they have continued as per usual? Was democratic accountability improving?
At what point does a grossly fat man describe himself as overweight? 200lbs? 300lbs? 450lbs?
When does the Qualitative Democratic Index (QDI), if there was such a thing, reach the point when a country can no longer be called democratic?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
KGazi, if you still think that the regime is about giving a democratic backbone and setting everything right then I salute your optimism and hope you’re right. Unfortunately, I don’t share your optimism, and note that ‘we don’t have the luxury to see if democracy works’ argument was tried in 1982, 1975 and 1958.
Sid, I don’t say ‘Democracy will reach perfection if given enough time’. I say that given enough time, democracy has a probability of becoming better (in terms of rights and liberty) over time. I fully accept that democracy can also revert to tyranny to degenerate. So, it seems to me that we are in agreement in the first half of your comment 23.
In your para about Abdul Ghafur, aren’t you shifting the goal posts a bit? As it happens, as much as I can tell from macro data, Abdul Ghaffur’s material standard of living did improve between 1991 and 2006, it improved faster than was the case between 1975 and 1990. But I thought we were talking about rights and liberties, not standard of living (yes the two are intertwined, but they are not the same).
I don’t think anyone can argue that Abdul Ghafur of Jhenaidah has more rights today than he did a year ago? Of course he didn’t have all that much right a year ago, but the current situation hasn’t given him any more right.
Finally, what led us to this. Yes AL and BNP deserve blame, no question about it. But let’s think how it came to this. In the 1990s, AL/BNP figured out that the democratic system we set up gave the parties 5 years to control everything from the local football club to Bangabhaban. And they tried their best to rig the system so that they could win. Since the sides were roughly equal in strength, they led to a stand off.
What did the neutral opinionmakers (civil society bhodrolokes, retired civil-military bureaucrats, academics, journalists, and even us bloggers) do? Did they try to correct the politicians? Or did they say that ‘dhur, politics kono bhodroloke kore naki?’ Did they not say that ‘eishob politician der theke ekta technocratic/3rd force/ desher back bone thik kora shorkar dorkar?’ Did they think ei 3rd force er force ta kon khan theke ashbe? From the pens and keyboards, or from tha barrel of someone else’s rifle?
And now that we are in tyranny, we scratch our head and think - gee, what went wrong, and then say shob politician der dosh. All the while, Abdul Ghafur’s rights remain just as trampled.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:40 am
Hold on. Major “false dichotomy” alert.
Are you calling this government a perfect tyranny? What does that mean? Do you mean this government is as good a government as possible given its origins? Because that’s just not true, you know. And if you want to know why this government is not perfect, please read comment 16 again.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 am
Jyoti #24 - I am not just optimistic, I am pretty sure CTG is on the right track. Only way to derail their direction is by an uprise of corrupt black money, to return the RAJ to the RAJNITI of corruption.
‘we don’t have the luxury to see if democracy works’ argument may have been tried in 1982, 1975 and 1958, but 2007 is different - this is the first time we have actually TASTED ‘politics’ for 15 years, and what we found is that there is a BIG difference between ‘politics’ and ‘democracy’.
EVEN if you are not optimistic of this CTG, you should shun the old ‘politics’ and support the CTG to bring in ‘democracy’ with its crucial requisites - law&order, anti-corruption, accountability, and system.
BTW, some bloggers have been writing against bad politics for decades!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 am
Democracy is simply not working in the third-world countries, whatever the format and age of democracy is: lousy democracy, formidable democracy, infant democracy, toddler democracy, kindergarten democracy, pre-school, teen or adult or old hospice dying democracy, presidential or parliamentary democracy: none of them have proven to be effective in good governance. The biggest grandpa democracy of India failed to change the lot of India though we now hear so much of economic gimmick of skyrocketting growth rate of Indian economy. Still, Indian citinzenry has the worst standard of living in the whole world except some African countries. Still now, India tops the highest position in bibery and corruption in many different sectors.
Economic growth rate seems to be some kind of statistical myth and it’s, I believe, nothing but purported intellectual forgery to appease people so that the can stay with the spurious pride of the so called herculian democracy.
I appreciate democracy but not the traditional dictated imposed democracy. I wonder, why the exporters of democracy don’t invest more budget on innovating state of art democracy. They should stop dreaming of cruising and residing on the space, moon or mars. If they divert all research money from Hi-fi research to democratic research, innovate better state-administration craft and present a super-duper democracy that will really help the poor, oppressed subjugated people change their lot. And if the third world people can come out of povrty to live dignified standard human lives, I believe, they [exporters] can rule over the world as they are desperate about and people will remain gratified to them. Otherwise, old decaying demoralising partisan traditional democracy won’t be good marketable profiteering tool.
I do always hope, there will be the new democracy free of inherent defects of partisanship, fradulent fund-raising competition, vote rigging, so on, of current democracy. The new democracy will usher new state of art administrative system and happy peacful days for us in future.
Thanks.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Most people in Bangladesh want democracy to succeed more than anything else but are not credulous enough to accept any old tripe hoisted from Sangsad Bhaban as democracy simply because there are general elections held every 5 years to bring on another round of crooks and thieves to cream off the fat of the land. Or what’s left of it.
When macro-economists analyse figures that suggest that Abdul Ghafur in Jhenaidah is enjoying more rights and liberties, they ascribe this success to the fruits of democracy. But what about other factors such as:
* Unemployment (currently at 50+%, I believe)
* Job creation
* Education at primary and secondary school level
* Ease of social mobility
Have the figures on these factors improved between 1990 and 2006? I don’t have the data, but I can guess that they have not. Would a reading of the macro-economic data suggest that the lack of improvement on these factors is due to the sham-democracy that operated in those years, or are we in the business of counting only the positives and ignoring the negatives? Abdul Ghafur has got to marry off his daughter Lipi now 15 as quick as possible, raise 5 lakhs to send the eldest son, Helal, to Qatar, keep the youngest 3 in school and feed all of them as well his wife. Do you think he has time to analyse how his liberties have increased in the last 15 years?
If bhodrolok and bloggers were repelled by politics it is because politics was populated by strong men, matabbors and goondas who’s only angle was how to pocket government funds. If democratic politicians were not in the business of electoral reform, it is because politicians like Hannan Bhuiyan and Abdul Jalil had the system over a barrel. These men had no incentive to improve the status quo and never thought that a stronger, more illiberal force than they would come along and kick that barrel over. If we are in a bad place now, it is because democratic politics had become a glorified crime zone.
Most bhodrolok don’t visit brothels either and don’t want anything to do with them. Does that mean they should take the blame for syphillis?
Finally, I don’t think we are in a tyranny yet and I think you’re being cheeky to suggest that it is. Either that or you have lived in Uganda in the 60s, Chile in the 70s, Haiti in the 80s and Burma since 1962 and regard the situation in Bangladesh as the same as those countries. But I think the situation right now is a direct progression from collapsed democracy and tending towards soft autocratic tyranny with the encroaching danger of Islamist fundamentalists. Yes, things look hopelessly bad, but I put the blame on the erstwhile democratic politcians not civil society.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Hmm. I’m curious how much latitude current supporters of this regime are willing to give to our rulers. Thus, I ask: If General Moeen, either before ending his tenure as Chief of Army Staff, or directly afterwards, becomes the President of Bangladesh, will you then change your appraisal of this government? Will that make it a tyranny in your eyes?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Steady on. I’m not giving this government any latitude and I’ve already said several times that I regard it as a tyranny. The single point I’m making, at the risk of being reductive, is that the smell of the rose garden of the last 15 years is not that different to the smell of the FA/MUA latrine that’s been built over it.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Tacit, anything can happen in the future, nobody can predict it. That does not mean we sit back for an event that might happen. If something is good there should be appreciation and criticism for the opposite. There should not be a pre-formed biased on every issue.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Sid (28): I don’t think we are in a tyranny yet.
Sid (30): I’m not giving this government any latitude and I’ve already said several times that I regard it as a tyranny.
Okay, that cheekyness out of the way, let’s see if Sid and I can reach a common ground.
1. Abdul Ghafur’s standard of living.
As far as anything quantifiable goes, Ghafur’s life did improve between 1990 and 2006. Further, the pace at which it improved was stronger than what happened to him between 1975 and 1990. Here’s a bit of stats:
http://dpwriters.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/lets-go-to-the-videotape/
Now, you can say that these improvements had nothing to do with politics. Fine. We can agree to disagree on that.
You can also say that things could have been better. Sure. I agree.
You can also say, like Bitterboy, these numbers are made up concepts to make us feel good. When I read that, it reminded me of a quip by a great economist: if someone tells you that he is Napoleon, you don’t engage in a conversation with him.
2. Ghafur’s rights.
Ghafur doesn’t have much rights today, and a year ago he didn’t have much rights either. Let’s ignore which set of denial of rights has been worse.
Do we think Ghafur’s rights matter? If the answer is no, then there is no point in talking any more. If the answer is yes, then we have to ask, from what base do we think things could improve faster for Ghafur’s rights?
3. Fault of civil society
Standing in October 2006, what were the options? More logi boitha violence if the election was rigged vs possible Awami reprisal if they won - that’s your worst case scenario.
But, there was nothing inevitable about either outcome. An AL supporter could quite rightly argue that if all of civil society (bloggers, editors, NGO wallahs, nobel laureates) came out and supported Awami League fully, it would not have felt the need to boycott the election that made the coup inevitable.
Go back 5 years earlier, and a BNP supporter could rightfully argue that if all of civil society accepted the 2001 election verdict and withheld its ideological biases against the ‘jatiyotabadi’ brand of politics, perhaps BNP leadership wouldn’t have fallen to Falus and Mamuns.
What did civil society do? From 2001 on it had urged for a 3rd force. Well, now we have the 3rd force in power. If like KGazi you’re pretty sure about the 3rd force’s intentions and ability, then we’ll just agree to disagree. If, however, you think that the 3rd force has its own agendas, and those agendas can conflict with rights and liberties, and that similar agendas in other times and places have always clashed with rights and liberties, then it seems to me that it is pretty hard to be optimistic. Then, it seems to me, asking for a 3rd force intervention for the past 6 years so was a mistake.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:33 am
On the point of civil society, didn’t they form a nagorik committee and had a year round country wide tour to make a proposal to the political parties?
http://www.cpd-bangladesh.org/Policy%20Brief/sub%20folders/NC2006.html
October 5th, 2007 at 1:06 am
A question was asked. No answers have been offered.
Comment 32 summarizes everything really well. We can disagree all we want, but after we’re done disagreeing, let’s try to lay down some parameters that can help us judge the way our country is going nowadays. That way, we can come back in fifteen months (or sooner, hopefully), and discuss who amongst us gauzed the situation in our country better.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Tacit, I’ll take up on your offer.
If Gen Moeen, after retiring, is chosen as the president by a parliament that is elected by a free and fair poll, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nooruddin Khan and Mahbubur Rahman were previous army chiefs that joined party politics - Nooruddin was even a senior minister. Both AL and BNP had other senior generals as MPs.
So it’s not just Moeen becoming president that is the issue. It is how he becomes the president how that is the issue.
AsifS, what happened to that initiative?
October 5th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Jyoti #32: “If, …you think that the 3rd force has its own agendas, and those agendas can conflict with rights and liberties, ”
—————
“There is nothing good or bad, only THINKING makes it so” - Shakespeare! If you THINK the third force have “agendas”, you might not be optimistic.
But what are your THINKING based on? - previous folklore, current speeches, AL-BNP warfare, or the intimidating uniform? Are there tangible reasons for thinking so, or are they subliminal THOUGHTS?
And the good old “rights and liberties” that we were awash with, in freedom of corruption, freedom of hartal, freedom of parliament-boycott during the age of ‘politics’?
The job of a govt is to maintain order - rights and liberties are only priveleges that a nation provides the people - there should be no rights and liberties to steal govt public property.
The third force is only the DAROWAN who bells the cat for the CTG - they are not the main force, without them the CTG would be more like a lame duck.
So, tacit - roll the dice, and lets see if the Generals are genuine.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
My sentence in (30) had a typo, it should have said:
” I’m not giving this government any latitude and I’ve already said several times that I regard it as a SOFT-tyranny.” Because as yet, there aren’t wholesale disappearances and torture chambers a lá Chile or Uganda. Not just yet, anyway.
I’ve noticed is a strange mental hangup amogst BD bloggers of late. It goes like this: if I criticise the previous democracies (if they can be called that) then I am automatically become a supporter of the Army. I’d like to distance myself from this denegerative logic, thanks very much.
So I’ll say it again: My point is that the army-CTG takeover is a direct result of the shambolic democracy of the last 15 years. If a man were to drink a lot of alcohol he will invariably get drunk. You cannot blame the man for being in s state of drunkenness without taking the imbibing of alcohol into consideration. I hope that that simplification gets the point across and I’m certainly not passing any value judgements on drinking.
But I do take exception to democratic politicians looting a country and then acting all surprised when their asses get hauled into prison.
Jyoti:
Go back 5 years earlier, and a BNP supporter could rightfully argue that if all of civil society accepted the 2001 election verdict and withheld its ideological biases against the ‘jatiyotabadi’ brand of politics, perhaps BNP leadership wouldn’t have fallen to Falus and Mamuns.
I don’t exactly understand the point you’re making here. Are you saying that top-level national corruption of the scale of the Falus and Mamuns is the result of political dissent? If so, you have a curious take on democtatic process, I must say.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
KGazi, let’s just say we have different different concepts of rights, liberties and the job of government, shall we? Surely reasonable people can agree to disagree?
Sid, my point is that the responsibility for the degeneration of democracy over the past 6-7 years rest not only with the politicians, but also the opinionmakers. I’ve never said politicians are blameless. But to say ‘all politicians are corrupt’ and ‘everything that has gone wrong is because of politicians’ are dangerous oversimplifications.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:32 am
In introductory philosophy classes, the teacher often asks this question: if there is a God who is omnipotent, how do you explain the presence of evil in our universe? One of the wrong answers to this question is that this evil is not actually evil at all, but just part of the divine design by which mankind are taught morality and adherence to the almighty.
This answer is wrong because to justify it, not only do you have to justify every wrong-doing ever committed in human history, you also have to make an argument like the number of little babies killed in the 1970 cyclone was exactly equal to our collective guilt. One less baby and the punishment would have been too light. One more baby and we would have been overpunished.
The argument presented in comment 37 reminds me of the philosophical position described above. How much money do you have to steal to be arrested at the dead of night? How much politicization do you have to commit to be denied medical care while critically ill? How many contract must you rig to qualify to having your interrogation taped and distributed all over the country? How much “khash-mohol” must you occupy to see your wife, son and daughter thrown in jail with you? How many pieces of tin must be found underneath your house to justify threats of being killed by crossfire if you don’t cooperate with the army?
Will someone please explain the calculations of this anti-corruption brand of justice to me?
October 6th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Jyoti
I’ve never said all politicians are corrupt; not only would that be an incorrect accusation but also a baseless one. However a critical mass of significant politcians at the top of the political layer-cake were corrupt enough for the rot to set and give crediblility to nefarious corruption at every level of beauracracy. This can be seen by the indicator that by the end of the last 15 years, corruption had gained the brazen complacency of not even bothering to conceal itself, rather it had become credible to be conspicuously corrupt. The Falus and Mamuns are not the causes of this culture but merely the effect. Now we differ on how corrosive the effects of this cultrual norm is for a democracy. You play it down and I say it’s as bad as the denial of basic rights.
You still have not explained the point you made in #32: Are you really saying that the astronomical levels of corruption of BNP and Awami League developed because of popular dissent? Now that goes beyond playing it down, unless I’ve completely misunderstood. Please clarify.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:27 am
tacit #39:
Will someone please explain the calculations of this anti-corruption brand of justice to me?
I think what you have constructed is a very elaborate strawman argument. It goes like this:
1. A philosophical model exists which suggests that evil is not evil because God is Good. In other words God is Absolute and evil is only relative.
2. This is used to justify acts of evil as conducive to some sense of Natural Order.
3. This leads to crimes against humanity in a self-perpetuating cycle of moral relativism.
4. Sid is arguing for this moral relativism by saying “Army is Good” because he says “Democratic politicians are Bad”. And worse, he says Khaleda and Hasina eat babies for breakfast!
It’s a strawman because (4) is a fallacious conclusion to a arbitray philosophical model which doesn’t really have any real relevance to the subject at hand.
If I were a moral relativist, I would be saying Khaleda and Hasina are beyong evil because they are “venerable women”. When in actual fact, that is your position.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Well, Sid, since this is a philosophical argument, please do note that merely calling an argument fallacious and “arbitray” does not make it so.
You have been justifying the activities of this government by saying that it is the direct result of the activities of the politicians in the last sixteen years. Based on that, I was asking you, are you sure that according to your internal calculations, they deserve exacly what this military government has inflicted on them?
And please do note, my position is not that Khaleda and Hasina are beyond evil. I don’t think that’s anyone’s position.
Given that you have said you believe that corruption is equal to denying people their basic rights, I think I can safely say that this basic point is, to a large extent, behind some of our disagreements.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
You see tacit, the difference between corruption and the denial of basic rights is perceptual, subjective and, unfortunately, partisan. I would argue that they are fundamentally the same.
Look at it this way: In the 10 years that BNP were in power large institutions were earmarked for construction but never materialised because the funds ended up as personal property in Gulshan, Baridhara, London and New York of a number of high level politicians. That money should have ended up as power stations, schools, water refineries, hospitals, low income housing etc.
In other words corruption has deprived our nation’s poor of the following basic rights: the right to a primary education, primary health, sources of clean pumped water, the right to a safe, clean, powered house.
This is why I argue that bad democracy and military autocracy are related, in fact they’re first cousins by blood.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
You see tacit, the difference between corruption and the denial of basic rights is perceptual, subjective and, unfortunately, partisan. I would argue that they are fundamentally the same.
Look at it this way: In the 10 years that BNP were in power large institutions were earmarked for construction but never materialised because the funds ended up as personal property in Gulshan, Baridhara, London and New York of a number of high level politicians. That money should have ended up as power stations, schools, water refineries, hospitals, low income housing etc.
In other words corruption has deprived our nation’s poor of the following basic rights: the right to a primary education, primary health, sources of clean pumped water, the right to a safe, clean, powered house.
This is why I argue that bad democracy and military autocracy are related, in fact they’re first cousins by blood.
I’m not justifying the actions of this government. I have been saying that the absolute power of the previous democracies has corrupted absolutely, collapsed in an orgy of corruption and as a result have paved the way for military dictatorship.
It would be morally relativist to say that just because the Army has taken over then the previous corruption (which was absolutely corrupt by the way) is now relatively acceptable in comparison, and then weep uncontrollably, wailing “come back Khaleda, come back Hasina. All if forgiven!”.
But the national characteristics of weak resolve and short memories is sadly on display from many a quarter.
October 7th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Good to know. Please name some of these large projects that were earmarked but were never constructed. And while you can argue, and I’d agree with you, that more people should and could have been provided with power, water, housing and other basic necessities, I think it’s palpably false to argue that the BNP and AL government did not provide these services at all.
I also do disagree about the characterization of the past three governments as absolutely corrupt. I believe the 2001-06 BNP government is everyone’s favorite whipping-boy in this regard. Yet, it has been almost nine months, and the military government has not proved a single case of corruption. Every single conviction has been for not paying enough taxes.
Mind you, I’m not saying there was no corruption. I am saying that the corruption was not absolute, and was nowhere near absolute. You must see this, because if the corruption had been absolute, then we wouldn’t have needed a mlitary government, would we? We could have done as well with a government that was just a bit better than absolutely corrupt.
And once more, no one is saying to any of the two leaders that all is forgiven. In fact, I think the people who will judge Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina most harshly are the common workers of their own party. But they are the two most popular leaders of Bangladesh, even with all their flaws. The military government has not been able to change that even after trying really, really hard for the past nine months.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:16 am
tacit #45:
I am saying that the corruption was not absolute, and was nowhere near absolute.
Must I remind you of the following (Note: Extended scenes of moral absolutism and proportional blame to follow):
RAB was a 2nd term BNP construct. Notwithstanding Babar’s forced confessions, we still know that the crossfire killings by RAB started and peaked during the second BNP regime, way before Jan 2007.
The killings and targetting of Hindu citizenry in 2001 soon after the election victory and installation of the 2nd BNP government. And only because they were revenge attacks because these people were associated as Awami League vote banks.
in October 2002, the army was deployed by the BNP for Operation Clean Heart. This resulted in the death of 44 civilians because it was forced by the elites to crack down on crime. Again, a democratic government, mind. Has a human-rights violation of that scale been authored by a leader (elected or not) before?
The crime rate spiralled out of control in the 2nd term of the BNP government because political parties were in bed with criminal elements resulting in armed gangsters patrolling the streets of Dhaka in private 4×4s belonging to party accolytes. All democratically (halal) elected, of course.
The peasant uprising of Kansat which was dutifully stamped out by firing live ammunition at the people by, again, the army, happened under a democratically elected regime. And yes, again, the BNP second term.
You mentioned that corruption has not been unearthed by the CTG. I would say that they are in cahoots with previous high level suspects to keep the facts selectively publicised. I’m not fool enough to think that the ACC is not in agreement with previous power brokers. This could be because a lot of work is being done to prevent the publication of data and evidence at the very top because of legal implications with donors, multinationals and even governments.
They are probably also doing their best to placate kind souls who are in serious denial, and who would find it hard to accept the crimes and misdemeanours of the “venerable women”, particularly, Khaleda. Although, the shit is starting to hit the fan, for the old guard.
If you’re aware that most human rights are inalienable, why do their violations become more acceptable if perpetrated under the watch of Khaleda Zia and the BNP? Why have they disappeared from our short, selective memory spans?
October 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
But that’s the thing. Just like criticizing past governments does not mean expressing total support for this government, criticizing this government also does not mean expressing total support for the past BNP government. BNP should have faced Bangladesh’s electorate, and they would have obtained the appropriate punishment. The people of Kansat would have punished them through the ballot. Not only is this government committing unspeakable acts of HR violation, it has also denied us, the people of Bangladesh, of the power of punishing BNP in the manner which would have hurt it the most, if it deserved such punishment.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
[...] Bangladesh’s military rulers came to power in January and claimed as their mandate the holding of a free and fair election. They promised a swift return to democracy. Instead, today they rule by fear. Having consolidated their grip on the traditional media, they have now set their sights on the Internet and the blogosphere. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to silence the decentralized medium of the Internet. The military has justified their attack on fundamental freedoms by declaring that Bangladesh is under a "state of emergency". The "state of emergency" was invoked by Bangladesh’s civilian frontman, Fakhruddin Ahmed, in New York last week. At a gathering at the Asia Society the unelected pitchman for the military opined: [...]
October 7th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Not only is this government committing unspeakable acts of HR violation, it has also denied us, the people of Bangladesh, of the power of punishing BNP in the manner which would have hurt it the most, if it deserved such punishment.
But there’s the rub. If the elections had continued as planned in January, BNP would have been voted back into power (by fair means or foul) and you can be sure that the people of Bangladesh would certainly be denied the “power of punishing BNP in the manner which would have hurt it the most”.
Critics of the CTG like to claim that the student riots of August was the last time the army was deployed against the civilian population of BD since 1971. They are of course choosing to ellide Kansat and Operation Clean Heart.
In an ideal world, Khaleda Zia would be facing an international tribunal for charges of crimes against humanity. Her cimes are of course very real and the evidence is all too apparent. I’m afraid that any democratic process in any civilised country would and should be stalled to ensure her regime is changed and she and her advisors face justice.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
[...] in New York last week. At a gathering at the Asia Society the unelected pitchman for the military opined: You don’t realize that things could be a lot [...]
October 8th, 2007 at 12:15 am
in an ideal world, a disgraced leader would to the honourable thing and …
or a more able leader with a talented would remove them their seat.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:15 am
If BNP would have been voted back to power by fair means, then that would have meant that they had done more good than harm in their five years in power. The people of Bangladesh would have given them another five years’ mandate and then nothing we said or did would really matter when compared a democratic victory.
Could BNP really have won by foul means? They couldn’t even make it to election day, what makes you think they would have survived it? As is very clear, the army had aleady turned against them. How could they still have won? And if they did win, how long could they have stayed in power? They were unseated once for the Feb 96 election, a victory in Jan 2007 by foul means would have seen them reduced to a minor status in BD politics for the foreseeable future.
I’m glad we got to this point, because in my mind, it really exposes the tragedy of the current military government. It was so, so very unnecessary.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Like I said upthread, the difference between corruption and the denial of basic rights is perceptual, subjective and, unfortunately, partisan. I would argue that they are fundamentally the same.
No tragedy begets itself. The military government is not a spark in the pan. Effects are not causeless. The tragedy, if you want to speak in Shakespearian terms, has played itself out from 1991 to 2007 thanks to the freakshow we’ve been duped into calling a democracy. The military takeover of Jan 2007 is the strange fruit of the sins of the women leaders, but mostly of Khaleda Zia and the BNP.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Sid(40),
Apologies for clumsy writing. No, I don’t mean that dissent led to the corruption.
But I don’t think corruption was the fundamental problem. It was a major problem. But it was not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem was the winner-takes-all nature of the political system that we crated in 1991.
BNP figured this out by the end of its first term, AL started the dokhol culture which is the logical conclusion of the system, and BNP under Khaleda’s 2nd government turned it into an art form. Its that winner-take-all system that led to the corruption of Mamun-Falu. Politicians, like everyone else, react to incentives. And if you give people colossal incentives to be corrupt, they’ll have colossal corruption.
Now, the constitutional amendments in 1991 were done with active inputs from opinionmakers of that time. So, surely they deserve a lot of responsibility for what happened?
Then, when it became clear that the system wasn’t working well, what did we - the opinionmakers - do? AsifS talked about the shot o joggo prarthi andolon. WHat happened to that? It fizzled out. Why? Because it was wrong-headed.
Upazila election was a promise BNP reneged on. Where was the upazila election andolon? Strong local government would have helped with difusion of power. It would have created a better democracy. It would have made it harder for BNP to set up the 22nd Jan election, and that in turn would have made the coup redundant. Why did we not call for upazila election andolon?
Even now we harp on about corruption. There is no denying that Mamun-Falu are corrupt. Let’s also say that the netris are done away with. Let’s elect 300 honest MPs. Then what? Unless genuine reforms to the system are instituted, what’s the guarantee that in 2022 we won’t be having this same debate? After all, in 1991 Khaleda won because BNP was perceived as the party of honest folks.
It’s in that sense that I think we, the opinionmakers, should accept responsibility. No, our dissent didn’t lead to corruption. But our dissent was focussed against the wrong target.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Jyoti
I agree with your argument but not your conclusion. You’re right; In a constitutional democracy, policy advances are made, laws are ratified and implemented etc by the dynamic of Proposition-Opposition.
However, you then say that the onus of responsibility for the Upazila reforms, for example, was on the opiniomakers, but what about the party(s) in opposition?
What makes you unburden them of their responsibility to take the principled stance against the renegment by BNP of those reforms? Does the responsiibilty of the opinionmakers trump the role of the Opposition if, by your conclusion, they have any role at all.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Sid,
The opposition (both AL in the past 6 years, and BNP before that) deserves responsibility too. Even when BNP was bent on rigging the election, what was AL doing? Hatao Hasan, then Aziz, then Zakaria, then Iajuddin. So yes, politicians deserve responsibility. And no, the opinionmakers’ responsibility doesn’t trump that of the opposition (just like the opposition’s failure to oppose doesn’t absolve the government’s failure to govern).
But my point is not to absolve the politicians. I want us, and hopefully other opinionmakers, to engage in a bit of introspection. I want us to realise that we are culpable too. By promoting the wrong priorities, or failing to promote the right ones, we too have contributed to where we’re today. I want us to reflect on it.
This is important because the emergency will be withdrawn in a few months, and politics will return, and politicians of some form or other will again govern. And we’ll still have all the problems that we had in January, plus a few more created by this folly.
We need to learn from our mistakes, because as Keynes said:
” …the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. …it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.”
October 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Sid, why we going in a loop here? You said that the military government was Khaleda Hasina’s fault. I gave you that absolute good/relative evil example, and explained to you why blaming this government on Khaleda and Hasina is wrong. And then we went on to the aftermath of a possible victory by BNP in the 1/22 election. How are we again back to blaming the military government on Khaleda and Hasina?
This military government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to rid us of Khaleda and Hasina’s leadership. In fact, they have strengthened it. The military government has allowed injections of “democratic martyrdom” to enter the political persona of these two leaders. It has also made dissidents like Dr. Kamal Hossein and B. Chowdhury look like lackeys and really sort of doomed their political future.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
tacit:
This military government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to rid us of Khaleda and Hasina’s leadership. In fact, they have strengthened it.
hmm, I see we’re back to square one. Again, I haven’t said that the army is a panacea that God has blessed us with to wash away the pain of 15 years of dhanda-ocracy. I have said that they are a inevitable malignancy that is *the result* (shall I say it again?) of the last 15 years.
Why do you say that the army has strengthened Khaleda and Hasina’s leadership?
Jyoti:
We should be developing viable means of Opposition. A democracy without opposition is as useful as mosquito nets on submarine windows.
I agree that we should be articulating what are to be constructive methods of opposition. But without policy-led democracy at the outset, how useful will the public be at opening opposition lobbies? What are the conduits between the public and an Opposition party without strong local government institutions?
Chicken and egg? You better believe it. You say potato, I say potaato.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Sigh. I quote:
“The military government has allowed injections of “democratic martyrdom” to enter the political persona of these two leaders. It has also made dissidents like Dr. Kamal Hossein and B. Chowdhury look like lackeys and really sort of doomed their political future.”
October 8th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Is the propo-opo dialectic the only way? Its terribly low in dimensions and frankly quite poisoning.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:18 am
tacit #59:
Yes. that’s true. I have witnessed some extremely perverse unions these last few months.
Firstly, there is the strange sight of seeing former members of The National Communist Party (JASAD), stridently left wing, form unnatural alliances with Hizbut Tahrir, a far-right radical group of angry, disaffected nutjobs. HT are as close enough to organised fascism as you will get in the Muslim world. And why? Because communism might be dead in the water but old commies still nurse a malingering hatred of USA. So they have simply transferred their anti-Americanism to the new kids on the block.
Witness also some liberal-minded activist types who hated the right-wing politics of the BNP, the crimes of Khaleda Zia and her easy relationship with the military. They are now bosom buddies with former detractors of Awami League (usually men who have a weakness for Begum Zia’s earth mother qualities and her bouffant). They are experiencing mutual amnesia, by forgetting each others’ faults, their human rights violations, their mountainous piles of looted money, their bitter enmities. Both now regard the Begums as the best thing that happened to Bangladesh since Modern Bread. And why? Because their common enemy is the Army-CTG.
I’ll wager that if the CTG were to fail, a Plus Five plan would materialise. This will bring back the Begums and their children in one big happy joint family, single-party monocracy to look after the welfare of Bangladesh!
We’re a sentimental lot, aren’t we?
October 9th, 2007 at 3:03 am
As close to organized fascism as you can get in the Muslim world? I say, Sid, have you finally, finally discovered those darned Islamofascists? And in Bangladesh, of all places? You really should let the Bush administration know. They’ll probably give you John Gastright’s job.
And Sid, when you’re down to talking about someone’s hairstyle, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel, my friend.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I say, Sid, have you finally, finally discovered those darned Islamofascists?
Those of us who went to university in the UK in the 80s and 90s are painfully aware of HT’s religious supremacism. We knew about HT’s fascism when George W was still a recovering cocaine addict.
Sorry about the hair reference. I don’t want to offend anyone who regards Begum Zia as a surrogate mother and wears their ‘I heart Operation Cleanheart’ badges with pride.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Sid, Tacit and Jyoti my best regards to you for a classic write up on a most demanding subject of today.
Actually, what is introduction and where does the conclusion appears was very complicated to ascertain. Yet failed to catch the head and tail.
The philosophical descriptions, analytical assumptions and high up explanations were ranged beyond any realizations.
It were difficult to understand,
1. Is Khaleda, Hasina, and Army good or bad?
2. Democracy good or bad.
3. Army is good or bad.
4. Politics is good or bad.
5. RAB, Clean Herat good or bad.
6. FA good or bad.
7. Bangladesh good or UK / USA (may be some of
you are residing) are good.
8. CTG is good or bad.
In laymen, could you please say what you were to say?
1. Present system is good or bad.
2. Army should be discarded from government machinery.
3. Angels are to be brought from sky.
There is no absolute system in the world, so as in Bangladesh. We should not be very frustrated looking the dark history of UK /USA. We are far better than them in all regards if we just compare our age. Our people are fantastic, need of them is very low, types of crimes are very primitive and low in number, our people are not so crook like the one in other countries. We have all good things.
My comprehensive comment are:
1. CTG is doing the right things.
2. Army is also doing right things by supporting CTG in its all efforts.
3. The fate of K and H should be as it has been processed by law now.
4. We must not be prescribed by UK,USA, WB, IMF or ADB or countries /
Organizations like them to decide our courses of actions – we must stand on our own legs.
What it makes relevant saying in 70, 80s you were studying in UK with the subject you were discussing is not clear. May be you are trying to similarize something with the present in our country.
K, H and their gangsters are not alien but the nationals of this country, so we just can not eject them just like that – we have to own them putting them in through legal process.
We have to evolve system, strategy and foreign policy through the evolvement of infrastructures in all departments – government, semi-government, private or in public places time to time to suit our requirements setting visions, missions and objectives.
I believe CTG is doing the ones I have just mentioned.
Best of luck to you all.
ALO
October 10th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Sid (58): What are the conduits between the public and an Opposition party without strong local government institutions?
The opinionmakers - bloggers like us, and our murubbis and boro bhais in the mainstream media and think tanks.
Fug (60), why do you say that dialectics is not a good way? Sure it can be poisoning, but it doesn’t have to be. I don’t find the discussion with Sid and Tacit poisoning at all. If we can’t talk to each other without turning into poison, then surely no other way is going to improve our lot.
Tacit/Sid - Hizbul Tahrir has a totalitarian ideology, one doesn’t have to be a neo-con to accept that. But I’m not sure we should be surprised with their alliance with communists. As Susan Sontag said, communism is fascism with a human face. When it comes down to it, all these anti-liberal ideologies are about the state telling people what it means to lead a good life. Some do it in the name of the workers of the world, others for the fatherland, and yet others for the faithful.
In Bangladesh, as in many other parts of the world, globalisation is changing the society at a rapid pace. On the plus side, it is pulling millions out of poverty, people are living longer/healthier lives, and enjoying material comforts undreamt of in earlier generations. But on the minus side, the environment is taking a battering, inequality is rising, social fabric is being torn apart, old values and order are collapsing. There is a trade off between rising standard of living and social cohesion. Groups like HT make their choice clear. It’s the rest of us that need to think about our choice.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:08 am
tacit #45 - “I also do disagree about the characterization of the past three governments as absolutely corrupt….. Yet, it has been almost nine months, and the military government has not proved a single case of corruption.”
————-
Hummm !
In Dec 2006, Sk Hasina wrote a book in Bangla - and the most hilarious part of it I thought was her 3-page explanation - of how “there is NO corruption in Bangladesh”, and that was in end of 2006, in the height of lootocracy! It was the most naive piece of writeup I ever saw from ANYone, let alone an ex-PM.
It clearly explained the reason for the lootage situation in BD, and I am totally convinced that Khaleda Hasina, and the entire bunch of AL-BNP POLIT-SHALA had NO CLUE either, that they were robbing the nation. They thought it was their HUMAN RIGHTS, their long-lost freedom, the right to hoard public $billions.
They must have thought that was HOW a nation is supposed to be governed, they had no other exposure, no other training besides lootocracy, either in Pak-Bharat lineage or from Gen. Hazrat Mohd Ershad.
So whenever anyone claims “there was no absolute corruption: in BD” I wonder how much more corruption would one need to be convinced that the place was corrupt to the graveyard.
For military to PROVE any of them is corrupt is like trying to prove if any Bangali ate rice yesterday. They all did. Its a matter of how much, how grotesquely and how obnoxiously corrupt they were that is earning them the jail term.
If you really want the military to fail then ask them a more difficult question - can you find any politician who was NOT CORRUPT?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Re # 66, I actually did know a politician who was not corrupt. A better question, since my aquaintance of politicians is fairly limited on a personal level, would be to ask: can I name some politicians who I believe to be personally honest? Yes I can. Because ultimately this is what we’re dealing with, aren’t we? The public’s perception of honesty for our leaders, as painfully underlined by TIB reports, and not their actual corruption.
I’d have more sympathy for those arguing that for the last sixteen years Bangladesh was absolutely corrupt if the argument was about people enabling corruption, instead of people being corrupt themselves. However, I will not accept the premise that Bangladesh’s political representatives are absolutely corrupt. Trying to treat this as a priori true does nothing to make this claim any more viable.
Re #63, as pointed out in #64, just mentioning our personal experience does not convey anything to us. You have to do better than that.
It has now become sadly pronounced, Sid, that you can not talk about Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina without indulging in ad hominem attacks against them and anyone who refuses to attack them.
October 11th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Dear Tacit:
I believe you and I may be the only democrats who visit this website. I am utterly disgusted by how many bloggers on this site support military regimes. Who cares how “educated” or poised FA is — he is bloody unelected!! Who the hell does he represent? The army? or the World Bank? He has barely spent his adult life in Bangladesh — where is his constituency? Bangladesh is the next Burma and it nothing but a shame that so many sit silently while corruptions CHANGES hands blatantly in our face!
October 11th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Dear Nadia (#68),
Would you kindly inform, in details, how, where, and how much corruption is changing hands???
October 11th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Nadia Hossain (#68),
You will be amazed to see how nice the army people are in all regards. How much accepted they are in outside and how practical they are.
One or two isolated incidents doe not account whole army.
How much pain they endure for the cause of the country you are yet to know.
I remember few intellect people including Rashed Khan Menon always used to criticize army at random but became fan of army seeing their devotion and commitments for the nation.
There are blind conception about army with believes that army is eating everything and does only left-right. What a state of awreness of our educated (?1) people.
Regarding FA, he has no scope to be elected. That can kindly be understood.
The shocking of few educated (?1) people are when they are just at the close of the wall, they say save who you are from this hell, once rescued start cursing the saviors.
As far as good things are concerned believes may go it to continue till unlimited.
Well, those who were in heaven and spent king’s life with high nose pointing at the sky - are now affected really curing the present with ill motives. They will certainly be washed away.
ALO
October 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
My dear Nadia,
Thank you!! I know what you mean. I’d like to believe that this military government won’t be able to turn Bangladesh into another run-of-the-mill military junta; but I don’t doubt they’re going to try really really hard.
Ahbab Aziz, would you like to know about corruption in Bangladesh today? Do you know that Joint Forces officers are threatening businessmen with arrest and torture if they don’t pay up? Do you know that the new country lobbyist for Siemens-Nokia network is the brother of one of our current advisors?
How about the fact that Square Infomatics, Advisor Tapan Chowdhury’s company, has been granted the license for setting up private telephones in Dhaka, and will also probably be granted the license for setting up the VOIP gateway? Or that Arshad Hossein, Barrister Mainul Hossein’s son, is presently in process of setting up his own tv channel?
And all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Trust me, by the time this military government is done, they’ll have set back our nation tremendously through their corruption, AND they’ll also have made anti-corruption a much-hated buzzword.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Re # 71
A planned psychological warfare, well though out propaganda.
Surely, this type of effort will go in astray.
May it be pointed where the corruption and violation of rules and system are?
Regarding Joint Forces’ mention, you have the option to bring into the notice of proper authority (if at all there is any light of fact). Just if has no guts specify with authority and incident in the blog – let us see your blame game.
However, people are not angel; there may be some odd guys everywhere. But the assertion is a clear “stunt bazi” of defaming the group with ill motives.
ALO
October 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Nadia,
We all want democracy in this blog – but the key to democracy is that it does not end in an election. In Bangladesh we elected politicians and gave them ABSOLUTE power to control our law, our economy, our funds, our parliament, our system, our bureaucracy and our infrastructure.
But they robbed all of that, betrayed our trust and pocketed public revenue into their personal accounts. OUR responsibility is to rise above the status quo and DEMAND that we need change. That is the biggest meaning of democracy – we can not only elect but we have the right to REJECT politicians when they drown themselves in crime and corruption.
Whose responsibility was it to reform our system, our law and our corrupt bureaucracy? Was it the army’s, CTG, or the general public? No. That responsibility was assigned squarely on our politicians. Some say it takes time – 35 years, 220 years – OK that’s fine. But our politicians did not ask for time - they stole. While living in utter luxury, they rampaged our economy in a grand scale depriving starving millions of mothers and children.
Is that the kind of democracy you want to elect? Or do you also want change? Had the army not come in, there would have been NO change for another 36 years. Now we have an opportunity to accelerate our system to a more dependable elected community, who are self correcting, policy making and disciplined with checks and balance. We should support the CTG because THAT is what they have promised for the next year, and that is what we need.
tacit,
your perception of one (honest) politician does not make Bangladesh free from corruption. TI’s Index is based on a whole statistics of local and foreign perceptions of BD. Those who have worked inside and with BD politicians and govt bureaucracy will know exactly what corruption we are talking about.
The system is totally filthy. It reaks of corruption from PM to peon. KZ and SK and every single politician cheated taxes and kept govt money in their own accounts.
That whole culture needs change – whether we call it “absolute corruption” or teeny weeny corruption.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I agree, my perception of honest politicians does not make Bangladesh free from corruption. And I did not claim it did. I was only showing how palpably false the claim of absolute corruption was.
Certainly, let’s do everything in our power to halt corruption. But please remember that corruption means the abuse of power for personal gain, financial or otherwise. Please remember that abuse of power has never been, and will never be halted by giving someone absolute power. And please do not claim that filing cases against and convicting people based on their income tax returns constitutes anti-corruption success. It does not. Given the state of Bangladeh’s tax laws and the performance of NBR, you could use the same strategy against any and every government employee, businessman, and mid to high level salaried individual and get a conviction against them. Also, given that the government has allowed many other people to “whiten” their money while pursuing these convictions, they rest on quite flimsy legal grounds.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Even without having any idea of the extent inside govt & political corruption, and even without knowing more than a few politicians, just the TI statistics alone should give you enough evidence that there was undeniably a situation of ABSOLUTE corruption in BD.
No other country has ever been labelled MOST CORRUPT 5 years in a row. That alone is proof. That was not a political label - it was by TI, an international ombudsman respected worldwide.
Fact that absolute corruption existed in BD is recognized by all world bodies WB, ADB etc. Denial of that condition of asbsolute corruption in BD, is just what the politicians wanted, becuase it was in their personal interest to let corruption continue.
And lets not daripalla whether it was absolute or non-absolute. It was BAD OK.
Punishing corruption is the best way to bring anti-corruption - whether by jailing or not. Tax evasion is punished jailing all over the world why nor Bangladesh?
Sure it is painful to see our learned politicians in jail, but we must also look at the millions in slums too - whose living was deprived due to corruption, and who were relying on these politicians to releive them the misery of poverty.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Tacit (#71),
If there is so much corruption now, why the businessmen, even those without a TIN only a few months back, are going, in hordes, to the tax offices to pay tax?
October 13th, 2007 at 12:20 am
TI index will not tell us anything novel as far Bangladesh is concerned. At most, it is proof of what a few hundred people think about their daily lives in Bangladesh.
I ask all of you: how can you compare a mayor in China taking bribes to allow a bigger hydroelectric dam to an African colonel taking bribes to allow De Beers unlimited access to mines to a Bangladesh politician taking bribes to allow an unscrupulous energy deal to go through? How can you say one is worse than the other? That’s like saying that the lives of one group of people affected by this disease are more valuable than some other group.
IF TI said that corruption is a huge problem in Bangladesh, then at least I’d agree with them, even though it wouldn’t be new knowledge for anyone. But ranking corruption? Not scientific.
This debate is beginning to resemble the current US administration’s attitude towards global warming, in reverse. They demand absolute proof that global warming exists before they want to do anything about it. You dangle Bangladeh’s supposed absolute corruption as an imperative for agreeing to repressive, totalitarian measures. Both stances make absolutely the same amount of sense.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
BD politicians wanted to oust TIB office in Dhaka cos they were reporting too much corruption by politicians. Was TIB lying or were they “supposing”?
There is no “supposed” corruption in Bangladesh - its all real!
Thats my last comment on this thread.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:31 am
I personally am unaware of any such ouster efforts. I’m sure many people have vented their feelings against TIB, but that does not equal “attempts” at ouster.
I’m also not sure what announcing the stoppage of comments on a thread does, that could not be achieved by simply stopping commeting.