Posts by :
It’s time for South Asia!
January 27th, 2011
Courtesy: desirate.com
For the last seven days my staple reading has become the world famous book by Paulo Freire’s ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”. I just admire how a philosopher can make a brain storm by doing post mortem of the society. Paulo Freire is simply successful in this regard. Political history says that we, the people of this sub-continent were suppressed. The symphony of suppression was nothing but a farce. The monopoly behavior of suppression of the rulers made us parasites. Oppressors showed sadism and we the oppressed showed masochism. Our culture was brutally attacked by the oppressors. Paulo Friere anticipated that whatever the cultural attack is it kills the unique character of the nation. And the worst thing happened in this subcontinent. We never could converge rather we diverged. And this bad philosophy was a great catalyst to suppress us.
However, I think day by day we are gaining confidence to overcome these. Let us to be optimist! I do believe that now we have ample elements to be confident. And this duty is to be done by the young generation of this sub-continent. When I talk to the young people of my age I see their eyes full of dreams. Last year I met some young people of India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. They are the soldiers to make a united south Asia. Their aspiration was simply praiseworthy. This generation has the information technology. They will win the war. They will be the soldiers of democracy, discovery, peace and freedom.
This year we got the guts to arrange the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011. The vanguards of the world cricket are coming to the sub continent. This is the high time to show the world, the spark of our new generation soldiers. We will show the world that suppression could not make pessimist. We will make the new south Asia. It’s time for South Asia!
There is no provision kept for the opposition leader to address the nation.
January 12th, 2011Professor John F Nash said, “The best result will come if everyone in the group does what is best for him and for the group.” This is the best way to achieve the desired goal of a society and at the same time of a country. Bangladesh achieved democracy. But it is really a farce to us that we have achieved it before learning the depth of its meaning. Our long struggle for democracy has put Bangladesh into Huntington’s “Third Wave” of current world – wide democratization since 1991. The ongoing process of democratization has rekindled the hopes and aspirations of the common people of Bangladesh. Following the formation of the parliamentary form of government in 1991, Bangladesh anchored the journey to democracy and now people are prone to see democracy flourishing everywhere in the state organs and institutions.
However, the path of democracy seems to follow a zigzag direction of development that proceed amidst both challenges and opportunities that lead some observers to view that the experiment of democracy and democratization in Bangladesh clearly suffering from contradictory realities. Despite the fact that a number of factors seem to positively work for the slow and steady growth of democracy bearing brilliant prospects for democratic consolidation in our country, there are strong negative elements that also pose threats to achieving sustainable democracy.
A key element of any democracy is a strong logical, rational, insightful opposition party. The existence of the opposition party announces the presence of democracy. From the beginning of the democracy in Bangladesh we did not see a responsible opposition bench which could fight for the people. Rather it has uttered mere ridiculous rhetorics. After 1/11, the people of Bangladesh thought that the traditional political melodrama will stop. But they thought wrong. The main opposition party BNP is staging the same drama in each matinee show!
AL lead grand alliance has passed two years already. The prime minister delivered a speech to the nation elucidating the achievement of her government. The chairman of the opposition bench also delivered a speech to the nation refuting the prime minister. The opposition leader gave her comments on the prime minister’s speech at a crowded press conference at her Gulshan office in the city which the main opposition BNP called Khaleda Zia’s address to the nation. It is debatable if the people have given the opposition leader the right to address the nation. The opposition leader can only give her reactions or remarks on an issue by holding a press conference or at a public rally. There is no provision for the opposition leader to address the nation. The recent comments on the stock market crash given by BNP leaders are misleading. They are claiming that this crash is fabricated. They are also anticipating that money is being flooded to India. A person who knows the even the ABC of finance and economics will laugh at it.
The population of Bangladesh is large. It is not easy to ensure peaceful life for all. But it is easy to misguide these people. Economic and political theories collapse when the population size becomes larger. Then evil plan works out. But this is suicidal for any nation if insiders manipulate its citizen.
Khaleda Zia
Does Hartal Deliver in Democracy?
November 28th, 2010The main opposition party BNP has once again called upon a hartal, this time on 30th November. The leaders of this respected party are claiming that this strike is meant to ensure basic human rights for the people of Bangladesh. But such a claim is clearly a smoke screen for BNP’s protest against the government for snapping away the residence of Begum Khaleda Zia. BNP’s first hartal for this reason was observed right after Begum Zia was forced to leave her cantonment house. That brought great suffering to the those who were left home-bound instead of going to their kith and kin to celebrate Eid. After 2 weeks the opposition party has announced a second hartal for this very personal issue and the third one in total after AL took power.
Hartal is used as the last resort by opposition parties throughout the globe, when all other ways to get their demands fail. Although the economic and social consequences of such drastic measures are debated in national and local news media and at public forums with monotonous regularity, opposition politicians claim they have no alternative but to recourse to fight the intransigence and deaf ear of the party in power. This story has become a common scenario for both the parties.
Hartal is not simply an inconvenience and a nuisance, it is tantamount to a call for an “economic boycott” of our own goods and services by our own politicians during the period hartals are in effect. In stronger words, one may regard the calls for hartals as an act of constitutionally sanctioned economic terrorism. Why should we not regard the call for a hartal an act of economic terrorism when the citizens of a free country (buyers, sellers, shop-owners, factory workers, business executives, transportation workers, students, and academic institutions, etc.) are forced to stay out of their normal and routine activities for fear of retribution and physical harm? Reluctant shop-keepers and innocent bystanders lose properties and many even get killed by hartal-enforcing hooligans.
If we analyze the history of Bangladesh we will see that hartals are called by major political parties when they lose their grip on positions of power. Once an opportunity opens up with the offering of a new government contract, or some private entrepreneur taking an initiative for major investment, the ministers and the entire government machinery including the lending bank officials line up to get a share of what can be grabbed from the project. These are the same politicians who get involved in hartals and lockouts when they switch from a position of power to one of powerlessness.
But the question is: can hartal deliver in democracy of Bangladesh? Political protests, open political dialogue and debate are the fundamental rights of citizens of a free society. But how can politicians promise citizens a better economic future if their acts themselves are directed towards destroying the economic fabric and infrastructure of the country they want to rule? Of course, the blame for loss of output and welfare due to recurrent calls for hartals rests equally on both the major political parties. Both the leading parties have kept the National Parliament inactive, which is the highest house of this country for political dialogue. But when the opposition party always boycotts parliamentary sessions, the government can take any decision at its sweet will. And as a consequence, the opposition bench calls upon hartal out of nowhere.
UNDP report on the economic loss due to hartals claims the loss of 3 to 4 percent of annual GDP, apparently causing discomfort in some circles. Leaving aside any contentions about the precise measure of the loss of economic output and the magnitude of the parameter reflecting the negative effects of hartals, one must recognize that the GDP does not provide an accurate measure of the welfare of the people. The GDP measure does not reflect the welfare loss brought about by the inconveniences, hardships and anxieties the citizens have to withstand during the periods of hartals and thereafter. The GDP loss would be further aggravated when one considers the measure of discouragement for foreign investments, potential loss exports and imports due to delays in productions and distribution.
Hartals and the concomitant loss of output and welfare may seem as being a short-term phenomenon by the hartal-callers. Political instability is probably the most important discouraging factor for foreign investment and capital inflow. Political instability not only drives away foreign investment, it discourages domestic investors and encourages capital outflow. In a capitalist and free market economy, sources of funds for business investment and expansion depend on the strength and efficiency of its financial market.
Unfortunately, even after 39 years of its existence as an independent country, the financial market in Bangladesh is still in a primitive state. Because of recurrent hartals and rampant corruption, public distrust in corporate accounting and finance, business conditions are not congenial to stock market activities. Profitability of businesses is already cut by bribes to government ministers and officials even before factories are built and operational. If businesses are not profitable and the factors that foster economic growth are hindered by hartals, lockouts and corruption, the financial market will remain ineffective to generate sources of funds for business expansion and cease to function efficiently. Thus, hartals have long-term political and bleak economic implications.
The most immediate effects of hartals are loss of many daily essentials worth millions of taka which are perishable unless refrigerated or cold-stored. A small fisherman whose catches are for daily sales, a small farmer whose produce, such as vegetables and dairy products, are ready to be traded for purchase of his daily essentials cannot afford to lose their sales. The next day when the hartal is called off, there is bound to be shortage of these daily necessities. The public rushes to buy whatever they can get, driving prices up. High prices do not revert back in days to come and the result is an economy-wide inflationary pressure. Day laborers lose their wages and are thrown into uncertainty about post-hartal employment. Loss of work and income throws them into further financial ruin and poverty. If hartals bring misery to the public, how can such tactics gain widespread public support for political and economic reform?
Democracy provides the forum for reasoned and thoughtful political dialogue and public discourse. Resorting to violent means such as damaging and burning private and public properties during hartals to voice dissatisfaction against the policies of the party in power is becoming increasingly common and the citizens have already started showing their annoyance and non-compliance. Hartal is a political tool to be used only when everything else fails and the issues raised are popular public concerns and demands. If the objective for calling hartals is to make the party in power unpopular and dysfunctional, then such calls and political protests are better motivated by those issues the citizens are struggling with on a daily and hourly basis. Some of these issues are corruption, health care, money laundering, politicians’ family members investing and transferring money to foreign countries, deteriorating law and order situations, lack of clean and safe drinking water, road side city garbage disposal, and shortage of electricity, etc.
Bringing remedies and reforms to these issues will improve ordinary citizens’ life and living and at the same time awaken the voters to the lack of concern of the party in power. Issues concerning political reforms, law and parliamentary affairs must at first be debated on the floor of the parliament. The party in power must allow open and timely forum for the opposition parties to voice their opinions and arguments. Hartals and protests may be warranted when the opposition is denied such a forum.
Democratically elected politicians in power are not obliged to listen to the voices on the streets but to the voters who elect them. Neither the Awami League (AL) nor the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) is going anywhere in our national politics. Personal, mutual dislikes between the leaders of the two parties and the acrimonious atmosphere they have created among the politicians of the country seem to have reached an irretrievable point. The politics of personal destruction and dislikes has made the democratic process blatantly farcical and Bangladesh has become an object of jokes and ridicules in late night comedy shows on Western television. It is well past the time that they attempt to reconcile and work towards harmonious coexistence for the greater cause of the people.
The time to think about the socio-economic environment of Bangladesh has come. So, why not observe a “hartal” against corruption and hartal itself?
Hartal Fire Fest
The Unplesent Economics. Congrats to Professor MA Taslim!
November 14th, 2010THE level of economic literacy is one of the important determinants of the quality of economic policy-making and management. This is also a critical input to help widen the base of enlightened economic operators at different levels — large, medium or small. If the base of economic literacy spreads, it will help attract people’s attention, in fairly objective and dispassionate ways, to issues and maters that affect their every-day life, in one way or other.
As a student of Economics in the University of Dhaka in the sixties, this scribe would like to venture to say, without flaunting himself the least as being any professional economist, that economics, notwithstanding many see-saw changes in its academic domain and sophisticated model-building exercises through econometrics in the past few decades, remains essentially concerned about the use of scarce resources. This ‘use’ covers the areas of, what in plain language are called, production, distribution and consumption.
Having noted this, this will, perhaps, be not irreverent to state here that getting optimal or maximum benefits through, what the economists’ term, the efficient use of resources, does not always involve a straight choice among various options. There are many sides to it, including those having wider and, at times, complex, social and other implications and their multi-dimensional consequences.
Economics is not, however, all about populism, though it touches, as Prof. M. A. Taslim notes in the preface of his book, Unpleasant Economics, “everyday life of every one”. In this context, there is hardly any scope to contest the view that it is natural for people “to take some interest in economics”.
Economics, as we all know, is not a natural science. It is a social science. Social realities and dynamics do have much relevance to its practitioners. Yet then, it is often said economists argue too much on to many things. And it is also said that when two economists meet and discuss any issue that is related to their domain, they are found to have three sets of views or opinions, about it. But this is certainly no weakness of economics as a discipline of social science. Rather, it bears out its liveliness and openness and, thus, its vibrant nature.
The foregoing has, perhaps, been a digression – too far – without focusing on the book on the occasion of its launching. To be frank, this scribe has deliberately preferred doing that because of its relative ease and comfort. Venturing into an area of discussion about, or comment on, the contents of the book — its real ‘nuts and bolts’ – is not an easy task. This scribe does consider this too arduous and too academic a load for him to bear.
Nonetheless, in order to be fair about the purpose of this event it is worth noting here that Prof. Taslim in his book has pursued an analytical and critical approach to many of the issues in areas of monetary economics, international trade, macro-economics, prices and others that concern our life and living in the contemporary setting. He has been particularly careful about the pitfalls of ‘economic populism’. In this sense, the title of the book has been quite befitting.
Prof. Taslim deserves all thanks for having taken the pains of publishing his write-ups, essays and analyses on issues of contemporary nature in the form of a book that has so rightly been titled as Unpleasant Economics.
The book is a compilation of write-ups and essays by Prof. Taslim. Many of his such works, included in this book, were published in the country’s print media from time to time.
The Financial Express had also the opportunity of publishing quite a number of such write-ups. This was done it in full appreciation of the topical nature and relevance of the articles to the need for having a better understanding, in both conceptual and contextual terms, of the “real-life” issues that Prof. Taslim addressed in his views and analyses.
Unpleasant Economics goes beyond economic populism, academic and scholarly definitions of which vary widely. However, the term is otherwise found often to be employed in loose, inconsistent and unidentified ways to denote “appeals” to the people, “demagogy” and catch-all types of prescriptions or policy-recipe. Having said that, it should be noted that “economic rationale” and “populism” do not go together all the time.
In his book, Prof. Taslim, through all his write-ups, essays and analyses included in it, has made a strong case for persuading all concerned to change their, what he has termed, “entrenched views”, when these are not supported by facts, economic information and relevant data. He has also highlighted the need, quite forcefully with a great deal of logic, for collection of all relevant economic information, proper research on them, and interpreting them or explaining the data and their inter-relationship, in their proper contexts within the broad perimeters of an appropriate conceptual framework.
No pundit is needed to tell us that an underlying framework – and a rational one, of course – is critically important to put economic information or data in a proper perspective.
Unpleasant Economics
The points that Prof. Taslim has sought to drive home about the high degree of relevance of rigorous economic analyses to formulation or putting in place of appropriate policies, under any given circumstances, have, indeed, strong merits for consideration by our decision-makers. Also then, reflex actions, as and where necessary, can be designed and given shape to, in a way that will help avoid costly policy mistakes. Furthermore, better outcomes of economic policies that affect the lives of all can then be expected.
