Sorting out destiny
DR. Mahatir Mohamad, the former PM of Malaysia, had a vision. He converted his vision into reality in his lifetime. In the 1960s and 1970s Malaysia was a developing nation, and its destiny, becoming a middle-income nation, was achieved through the 20 year development plan of Mahatir's government.
Bangladesh is also aspiring to get there by 2020, immediately before its golden jubilee of independence. For example, Sheikh Hasina's government in the late 1990s had such a goal. Recently, Professor Yunus declared that he would make poverty history by 2030.
More recently, celebrating its 17th anniversary, The Daily Star dedicated three supplements to the vision of becoming a middle-income nation. There is, of course, debate at home and abroad on the time it will take to make this goal a reality. While pessimists brand this as rhetoric, optimists certainly see this as a reality, and even possible by 2030.
Working in the area of development research for the last 20 years, and particularly researching the development activities of South and South-East, I consider myself an optimist, however, with some caveats. The caveats are well known. If the last 35 years are any guide, it is not impossible to make a short list of such caveats.
Unfortunately, it is sad that after more than three decades of gaining independence we are still engaged in sorting out our destiny. What does it mean? Does it mean that the last quarter of a century was a waste? The answer is both yes and no.
In the case of the former, the politics, for that matter practicing election-based democracy over the last 15 years, was a failure, to say the least. It is not that we have a short supply of talent in politics. But, we have seen in the past how some extremely talented politicians eventually become thoroughly corrupt, both in money and moral terms, after winning elections. This, as a result, hurt the reputation of all the politicians. Also, the nation does not want to revisit the pre-1/11 political environment under any circumstances.
In the case of the latter, the last quarter of a century was not a waste in terms of the successes achieved in the economic and social fronts. In both these areas, a sound foundation has been laid for strong growth in the years to come. What were the sources of such a foundation? First, the NGO movement can be seen as a major driving force, for example, Asa, Grameen Bank, Brac, and so on.
Second, to a lesser extent, the political governments made some progress in bringing changes in the economic and social fronts. For example, Motia Chowdhury, as minister for agriculture (1996-2001), showed the potential of this nation's agriculture if right policies were taken at the right time.
The AL government's introduction of VGF cards and old age pension for the vulnerable groups was certainly not a small initiative. Moreover, the BNP's step towards tax reform, and bringing the rich into the folds of the income tax net, is also worthy of mention.
Unfortunately, thriving corruption during the political governments between 1991 and 2006 took away whatever progress had been made in the economic front during political governments.
Coming back to my point on the short list of caveats for developing a practical roadmap to becoming a middle-income nation, meaningful reform is needed in at least three areas:
Reform in politics
"Political reform" has become a catchword in present day Bangladesh. This was very aptly demonstrated by the senior assistant editor of The Daily Star, Shahnoor Wahid, in the February 19 editorial page. If Shahnoor's list (no nomination banijya, profile of candidates published up front, avoid mass meeting in the capital, election of bipartisan speaker etc, etc.) can be agreed upon by the political parties a meaningful reform certainly will be in sight.
Having said that, some political scientists are of the view that "democratic governments rarely survive in countries with per capita income of less than $1,500 a year: Kenyans and Pakistanis live under $1,000 per year. The same research finds that democracy rarely fails once per capita income rises to $6,000 a year (see Polly Toynbee, The Guardian, February 12)." In other words, it is unlikely that democracy will fail in Malaysia, which is now a middle-income nation.
Economic and administrative reform
Unlike other developing nations, we have a land prone to sustained natural disasters. The frequency of such hazards will increase in the years to come due mainly to the effect of global climate change. In almost all the world forums on climate change and its aftermath, the name of Bangladesh appears in the forefront.
With this global scenario in hand, it will be simply a huge undertaking to drag such a huge nation (more than 200 million people by 2030) to middle-income status. This does not mean that the goal is unachievable and the hurdle of climate change cannot be overcome. Indeed, what this means is that economic reform agendas must be carefully delineated by the future political governments.
The most important areas of reforms that need immediate attention are: Establishing effective local governments, making the economy competitive both in micro and macroeconomic terms, creating opportunities for more and more technical hands, creating more jobs, and making the service sector more creative and competitive -- the list goes on.
To attain all these, there must also be reform in administration and bureaucracy. The colonial bureaucracy is certainly now outdated. Moreover, the centralised and cadre-based recruitments over the last 30 years, unlike the recruitment process of CSPs, provided a pool of politicised and half-qualified officials who are not likely to be helpful in the future for taking the nation to its middle-income destiny.
Social change
To bring a meaningful change in the society/community, with a view to achieving middle-income status, is going to be the hardest task of all. We are the world's most densely populated nation, packed in a small land. There will be a great need for reclaiming land from the sea/bay, as has been seen in some European nations (Holland immediately comes to mind).
In order to follow these nations, the very fabric of the society needs changing. Such a change may be possible if the economic reforms closely follow social reforms. In other words, we cannot afford to take reform measures which will make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
We need to go for a high taxing society, unlike Malaysia or South Korea but like Scandinavia. This may, in turn, make the citizens accumulate less individual wealth relatively, and may encourage national wealth accumulation through super and relevant investment schemes. The culture of saving must be encouraged both in the public and private sectors, big or small.
The burden of becoming a middle-income nation within the next 20 years is certainly huge. It is not only the politicians who need reforming, they must also cultivate reforms in all the affairs of the society in order to modernise and bring changes without surrendering to the alien forces under the present day exploitation-ridden globalisation.
Comments