Toward Political Transformation in Bangladesh:

The Demand and the Supply Side of Healthy Politics

Mohammad Omar Farooq (June 1999)

(Draft: Not for citation)

 

  1. Introduction

I am taking this opportunity to share some of my thoughts in the context of the kind of change for Bangladesh that we often discuss on various Bangladeshi forums. First, several prefatory remarks. Please treat the ideas here as preliminary. What I have discussed here may apply to many other countries, but this article is focused on Bangladesh. I have defined certain words or expressions not to insult the intelligence or knowledge of our readers, but to have my thoughts clarified to myself.

My assumptions are as following. Bangladesh has no lack of talented people. The people do desire to see true development of the country. Bangladesh's problems are solvable. Once we properly diagnose the problem, we can then seek appropriate (right and adequate) solution. At least in the last fifty years, no genuine effort has been made to let this country overcome its vicious cycle. Given the population of the country is already big relative to its resources and it is rapidly growing, there is shortage of resources, but still significant development is possible. The real impediment to such development, progress and transformation is our political system, which includes both political culture and institutions.

Based on the above assumptions and in light of the experience of Bangladesh since its independence from Pakistan and of East Pakistan since the independence from the British, the following are some fundamental issues on which we need to build workable consensus, irrespective of our ideological, political or religious orientation.

I am an economist by specialization and I have taken the liberty of structuring my thought in economic framework. I hope non-economists would not feel intimidated by the title or the reference to economics here, as no prior knowledge of economics is assumed here and I have tried my best to keep in mind that what I have articulated here is for a broader readership.

One basic fact of economics that I have used here is that for true economic development, there has to be simultaneous growth in both demand and supply. What products are bought and sold in the market and at what price depend on both demand and supply factors.

 

II. Political Culture and Institutions in Bangladesh

Bangladesh currently has political institutions that are supposedly "democratic". However, democracy (simply defined as a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives) in Bangladesh is dysfunctional, primarily due to its political culture.

What is holding back Bangladesh from genuine and functional development is its dysfunctional political system. What we need is a political transformation: a fundamental qualitative change for the better.

 

III. The Demand Side

Mr. Ishtiaq Chishti wrote earlier on Alochona forum: "What we lack is leadership. ... The fault lies in us." Concurring with Mr. Chishti I would like to state that leadership is the most important ingredient of the political transformation we seek. However, how to bring about desired change in leadership is also an important subject.

I would like to approach this subject based on a profound statement of the Prophet Muhammad (s), where he said, "Your leadership will be a reflection of you (the people)." [Mishkat al-Masabih, #3717] This statement actually recognizes the power of people as well as responsibility of people. Viewing the problem of dysfunctional Bangladeshi politics in contemporary context, I have to say that the demand side for healthy and functional politics in Bangladesh is extremely weak, if not non-existent. In a modern economy, products' viability and continuity primarily are demand-driven. If customers are not satisfied or if they reject a product, we all know the fate of such a product. However, such outcome assumes that customers are conscious, insist on their satisfaction, and are organized and networked (if necessary).

Now let us turn to the case of Bangladesh. The fact that dysfunctional politics has continued for so long in Bangladesh is due to at least two factors. The first is related to the demand side. What is happening in the political arena of Bangladesh is, in my view, ORGANIZED POLITICAL CRIME. We all are generally familiar with what organized crime is. Organized crime relates to extra-legal organizations that engage in illegal activities for various types of worldly gains. I have not come across the expression Organized Political Crime (and I concede that my research on this matter is very limited). I would like to crudely define organized political crime as activities that are carried out in the guise or form of political parties or organizations, where such parties or organizations often operate in defiance of the law and public trust for narrow interest of a smaller group of people and to the detriment of the nation or the people in general.

I don't think I need to belabor myself hard to drive the point home that the dysfunctional political system of Bangladesh and its characteristics as organized political crime are clearly unacceptable. However, that it is unacceptable has not turned into the nation's rejection of the system.

From this point onward, I will substitute the word "customers" in a market with "people" or "voters". I will also use people and voters interchangeably. From the demand side people need to do two things for desired change.

First, whatever they don’t like they must send an appropriate message to the votees (receivers of votes; Did I coin a new word here?). Unfortunately, that has not happened in the context of Bangladeshi politics. This part of the problem is integrally related to the supply side of healthy and functional politics, which partly explains why demand-side signal has not come forth. I will address this separately in the segment on the supply side.

In Bangladesh, as part of democratic process, elections have taken place but essentially no qualitative or desired change has occurred simply because the people have changed one brand (party) for another brand (party), where the parties are essentially no different. To come out of the current vicious cycle of politics, the voters, not just merely as a part of the electoral process, but also as part of ongoing political existence, must send a clear message that those groups (parties) who do not meet their minimum quality conditions would not receive their votes. Without considering the supply side, this might mean boycotting elections altogether.

Secondly, the people need to send a message to the political market what minimum quality conditions they desire. There has to be a broad consensus on a very small set of quality conditions that must be identified in the market so that voters and votees know in no unclear terms as to what is at stake.

I would like to identify a few bottom line conditions that people must insist on.

a. Rule of law: the vote-seekers must have proven commitment to uphold rule of law before and after the election process. This is a clear, simple, but very broad condition. All vote-seekers must operate within the framework of law on and off the street. Any vote-seeking group that uses unconstitutional and unlawful means or conducts unlawfully would be rejected or boycotted by the people. Using political offices and powers for unlawful personal or partisan advantage is violation of rule of law. Using violence or force to obtain vote is a violation of rule of law. Using law enforcement agencies for partisan purpose is a violation of rule of law. We can further elaborate on this so that the idea is crystal clear to the people as well as the vote-seekers. But I hope that from the few examples I have given you get the idea.

b. Civility: The conduct of vote-seeking groups must be civil. Any group that uses violence as a mean to achieve its partisan interests or goals would be rejected. In a civil, democratic society, we expect an independent and impartial judiciary and law enforcement apparatus. Any group that engages in activities that jeopardize life, property or honor of others would be dealt with under criminal laws. Until rule of law is established and civility in politics is restored, people will reject those who conduct against rule of law or civility. Such groups would be categorized as "organized political crime" and thus, they would be viewed as public enemy.

c. Politics-free education: In any society that aspires to be civil and democratic, student politics cannot be the way it happens in Bangladesh. The destructive student politics in Bangladesh is facilitated and patronized by the existing political parties. Any party that does not have demonstrated commitment to free educational system from student politics as it is now would be rejected. I am not suggesting that students cannot have organizations in support of their respective political parties. However, their role and conduct must be related to complementing their education, not impeding or distracting from it. Political parties would be held legally accountable for activities of all affiliated or patronized groups.

d. General qualities desired: There are some bottom-line qualities that people desire in those seeking to provide leadership. It is the responsibility of the people to insist on these qualities. People should seek leadership or vote-seeking entities that reflect the following qualities:

The way I have identified the above set of criteria is irrespective of any ideology, religion or philosophy, because these are essential to any functional political system. All heretofore successful systems have, in varying degree and depth, these conditions present. Understanding this fact that these are bottom-line demand conditions should help us all toward building a new consensus irrespective of our ideological, philosophical or religious orientation.

Thus, from the demand side, the people have to reveal what kind of political products - political culture, political institutions, political environment, as well as leadership - they demand. In the political market the desired characteristics of the product in demand must be clear. More importantly, the people must insist on quality and just like in a commercial market they would reject (and if necessary, boycott) poor-quality products, it needs to be the same way for poor quality political products. It might be worthwhile to mention that product users who are informed and conscious of their power usually show natural reaction to poor quality products by reducing and/or eliminating consumption of those products. We are also familiar with the role played by consumers in case of harmful products. The kind of politics we are talking about is not merely poor quality; it is harmful, anti-people politics.

Please note that in absence of suitable alternative, which is a matter related to the supply side, the idea of boycotting an indispensable product is problematic. Boycotting in case of political product is even more problematic. Thus, the desired transformation is not possible without addressing the supply side, which will be done in the next segment.

Also, demand for healthy politics has to be effective. In economics this is known as effective demand - the willingness and ability to purchase. Just like in the commercial market, the forces of demand and supply equilibrate toward an agreed upon outcome through price. In the political market too, those seeking transformation of the current political system must be "willing" and "able" to obtain their desired product. This means that they must have a reasonable idea about the price they have to pay for such change, they must be willing to pay such price, and they must be able to pay the price.

Decade after decade, year after year, election after election, the continuation of the status quo in regard to dysfunctional, harmful, anti-people politics indicates that currently there is critical deficiencies on the demand side. These deficiencies need to be addressed for a genuine transformation of the society. People need to recognize these deficiencies as well as their voting (or people) power to bring about the desired change. There would be cost, sometimes very high, for product that is in infancy, such as transformed, healthy politics. Also, the existing products in the market may not so easily capitulate. But people do have the power and resources, if properly harnessed and networked, to bring about the necessary change. The better, stronger, and broader is the network and consensus for these demand-side conditions, the easier and less costly would be the desired change.

 

IV. The Supply Side

A market would not yield any product without simultaneous existence of both demand for and supply of the product. Suppliers supply keeping the demand in mind. If the suppliers can get away with poor quality product, many will. If they can get away with unreasonably high price, many will. If they can get away with harmful products, many will. That is why existence of demand that is clearly revealed to the suppliers or potential suppliers is critical.

Now let us try to return again to the case of Bangladeshi politics. The suppliers of politics in Bangladesh, the political parties, get away with their conduct and approach because there is adequate demand for it. When demand side will experience qualitative change, so will the supply-side. However, this process of transformation in case of Bangladesh poses a special problem.

Let me first clarify my viewpoint. The quality conditions from the demand side that I have specified above does not apply to any existing major political parties or organizations in Bangladesh. The major political contenders in Bangladesh - Awami League, BNP, Jatiyo Party or Jamaate Islami - do not meet those quality conditions. Nor does any of the other known contending groups, secular or religious. I have concluded several years ago that the future of Bangladesh does not lie with any of these existing parties. I also do not expect that there would be any genuine, fundamental, qualitative change in the character of these parties. Do I have a crystal ball or any scientific basis? No. But this is my considered opinion. If anyone CONSCIENTIOUSLY believe that these parties can be changed or be induced to change for the better to meet the demand-side quality conditions, by all means, it should be pursued. But I believe the future lies in a fresh and different approach and vision.

The special problem I mentioned is related to the fact that people, even though they desire positive change, they don't have any alternative. They neither have reached the conclusion to reject/boycott current suppliers, nor have they found or sought any desired alternative supplier. Thus, there is a twin problem: simply rejecting or boycotting the current suppliers would not solve the problem. There has to be new initiatives (new suppliers) that would be willing and able to meet the demand-side quality conditions.

It is in this context, once again, people need to understand their own power. Just like they can reconstitute the demand side, so can also they fill the void from the supply side. Taking the cue again from the realm of economics, producers are also consumers. Producers, organizations and individuals, also purchase both in the resource market as well as product market. Microsoft, a producer of software and related product, has to purchase computers, furnitures, supplies, buildings etc. Also Bill Gates, the founder and CEO of Microsoft, has to buy his toothbrush, toothpaste, toothpicks, toilet paper, grocery etc. from others. Thus, in varying capacity, we all are producers and consumers. Similarly, the voters and votees come from the same pool - the people. People vote and, at the same time, from among people, some are candidates for votes.

Thus, just as much people have the ability to influence the demand side of the politics, so do they have ability to affect the supply side. Those who are most conscious from the demand-side are often the best poised for excellence from the supply-side. Several stages or aspects of such supply-side response can be identified.

First, everyone is not an organizer, entrepreneur or visionary. Thus, those who fall in such category and also aspire to see changes in the demand side need to come forward to fill the supply-side void. Not every single such initiative would succeed or be effective, but let us hope that some will. Just like in business, not every entrepreneur supplying the same product is successful or equally successful, so would be the case with such new initiatives. Consider the case of Apple Computers vs. Microsoft, or Wal-Mart vs. K-Mart. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that recognizing, understanding, and embracing those demand-side quality conditions are not enough to produce successful new initiative.

Besides having the appropriate product, the suppliers have to have the vision and leadership to build their market share, dominance, and distinction. This part is a fair game for all those who have the requisite capabilities: experience, vision, creativity etc.

Second, those who do not fall in the first category need to selectively and vigorously patronize these new initiatives. They need to actively participate in formation and growth of such new initiative. For success of these initiatives, it is important that these should not be like mushroom in numbers; these should have broadbased consensus or common agreement. The new initiatives would not find an empty field; they have to confront the forces of the status quo. Thus, it will not be a painfree or less costly process. However, just as the cost (not necessarily in just monetary term, but in a comprehensive sense) is expected to be fairly high for genuine and relevant new initiatives, the initial price to bring about transformation using such products would be fairly high as well. In a violent, partisan, uncivil society, the cost could be enormous. But appropriate products come only at appropriate price. That is why there must be "willingness and ability to pay" and that is how "effective demand" is defined. Otherwise, anyone can desire to have a BMW, Mercedes or Rolls Royce; but that is simply a desire, a want, but no more.

 

V. Several Pertinent Aspects

Based on the analysis above, it is my conclusion that demand-side of healthy politics in Bangladesh is seriously deficient and ineffective. If we seek a positive transformation of the political system, we need to recognize, articulate, and reveal the quality conditions from the demand side. There has to be simultaneous development of new initiatives from the supply-side to address the new demand. There are, however, several pertinent aspects that require additional comments.

a. For those who are (actively or inactively) loyal to existing major political parties:

Regardless of background, one should first determine for himself (please don’t take from these pronouns that I have a gender-bias), if he agrees with the demand-side quality conditions. If he does, then he should scrutinize whether his favorite party or party of affiliation essentially meets these conditions. If his party does, then basically this analysis here is mostly irrelevant. If it does not, then he should be asking himself, why do I work with, support or condone such a party. If he believes that his party has the potential to change so that the demand-side quality conditions can be met through his party, by all means try to bring about change from within the party. If not, then the choice of conscientious people should be obvious. And, stating the obvious by me is unnecessary.

B. The issue of ideology

I have presented my analysis so far in an ideology-neutral fashion. This is because what I have addressed here are bottom-line issues and are applicable regardless of any specific ideology or religion. I hope that I have not identified any of the conditions that is controversial. If I am right, and I sincerely believe that I am, then all those who are "conscientious" as well as caring about Bangladesh, regardless of our background, we have common grounds to work toward building a consensus around these bottom-line issues.

I do believe that if these demand-side quality conditions were met by any of the existing parties, Bangladesh would be fundamentally better off. Even if, Awami League, could change to meet such demand-side conditions, Bangladesh would be better. I just don't believe that AL can be changed. The same is true about other existing major political parties, including BNP.

Do we need specific ideology for genuine transformation? Let me make, at least, myself clear. I am a Muslim but I would prefer even an honest, caring, competent socialist party than a dishonest, uncaring, incompetent religious party. The reality is that the existing parties are not meeting the very basic quality conditions. As a Muslim, I have certain preference in regard to ideology. Others might have different preference. However, as a Muslim, I have resolved to myself that I am going to work toward meeting these bottom-line quality conditions. If others also concur, then, once again, we have a common ground to build a new foundation for our society.

Based on such common understanding, the next step would be that I could be part of a new initiative within my ideological preference, while others can take new initiatives based their ideological preference. We all will know that we can trust and mutually respect each other. On an ideological plain, I can express my difference with others, while others can do the same with me. We will take our case to people. Let people choose which way do they want to go. We will argue and debate vigorously and transparently. But others' life, properties, honors and rights are safe with me, and I expect that there would be reciprocity from others.

C. Toward building consensus

Others who are thinking about the problems we are facing may have a different analysis and approach, and I hope they would come forward with their analysis and approach. If we have meaningful and adequate convergence, then we can work toward building a new consensus about the bottom-line, demand-side quality conditions.

All the major political forces in Bangladesh, whenever they had access to power in varying degree, they have made terrible mistakes (sometimes, nothing less than crimes). Successful new initiatives are going to come from those people who don't want to dwell on the past. They would be forward-looking. They also need to recognize that genuine transformation of Bangladesh is going to require broad-based consensus on these matters and involvement of people of every background. Such work is for people with forward-looking vision. This type of work cannot be enhanced by those who have unfinished historical agenda that feeds the atmosphere wrought with a lack of post-1971 reconciliation between those who worked for or against the formation of this new country, Bangladesh. Such people are fossilized in the frame of history. The future of the nation does not lie with them.

D. The role of various Bangladeshi forums seeking positive change

Various new Bangladeshi forums with forward-looking vision, such as Shetubondhon (http://www.shetubondhon.org), Alochona, NABIC-L (www.nabic.org), EB2000, BAFI and others, can be instrumental in moving the nation toward building such bottom-line consensus. Since these quality conditions are ideology-neutral, any forum can embrace and promote these ideas vigorously and consistently. Remember, we are talking about issues that shouldn’t be that much controversial:

  • Rule of law

  • Civility

  • Politics-free education

  • Leadership that is: (competent; caring; fair and non-partisan; trustworthy; committed to the rule of law and civility; and creative)

    • VI. Conclusion

    The purpose of this article is to provoke us think about our problems in a problem-solving manner and to identify basis on which we can identify common grounds and work toward building workable consensus for bringing about qualitative transformation in Bangladesh. I have already stated that please treat these ideas as preliminary. We all know that we are good in criticizing. I look forward to your criticism, constructive and civil ones. More importantly, if you have an alternative analysis, articulation, or approach, please bring it to the table. I would be most interested in such alternative articulations.

    ______________________________________

    *Send your comments/feedback to:

    Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
    Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
    Upper Iowa University
    563-422-5204
    farooqm@globalwebpost.com 

    *This work has been cited in a dissertation in Russian [#59]

    HOME
    Index of my writings
    Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam?
    Genocide 1971 Page?
     Hadith Humor Page?