On 16 April, 2024, the Freedom and Prosperity Center of the Atlantic Council, dedicated to advancing ‘US leadership’ and emphasising the ‘central role of the Atlantic community’, released a country report titled ‘Freedom and Prosperity in Bangladesh’ in Dhaka. The report suggests that while Bangladesh experienced a decline in freedom, it witnessed progress in terms of prosperity. However, certain newspapers painted a gloomy picture, disseminating fake news.
From a methodological standpoint, the rationale behind selecting 1995 as the benchmark year for comparison remains unclear in the Bangladesh Country Report. The report fails to explain this choice, necessitating a reference to the ‘2024 Atlas: Freedom and Prosperity Around the World’ for clarification. This lack of clarity may lead to confusion among readers of the Bangladesh Country Report.
Before delving into the report’s details, a significant contradiction warrants attention. The Executive Summary suggests a correlation between freedom and prosperity, asserting that countries granting more freedoms witnessed increased prosperity from 1995 to 2022. However, the report presents conflicting data for Bangladesh.
In 2000, Bangladesh ranked 107 in prosperity and 116 in freedom, by the present, its prosperity rank improved to 99, while its freedom rank deteriorated to 141.
From a methodological standpoint, the rationale behind selecting 1995 as the benchmark year for comparison remains unclear in the Bangladesh Country Report. The report fails to explain this choice, necessitating a reference to the ‘2024 Atlas: Freedom and Prosperity Around the World’ for clarification. This lack of clarity may lead to confusion among readers of the Bangladesh Country Report.
This inconsistency challenges the notion of a direct correlation between freedom and prosperity in Bangladesh, undermining the report's foundational premise. Moreover, referencing China and Singapore implies a cautionary message from the US against replicating their economic models, despite their non-democratic nature.
Now, let’s dive into the primary theoretical underpinning of the report, which posits that freedom leads to prosperity rather than the other way around. This perspective was reiterated by Peter Haas, the US Ambassador to Bangladesh, in his speech marking the publication of the report, as reported in The Daily Star on April 18, 2024.
Ambassador Haas emphasised the ongoing debate regarding whether prosperity fosters greater freedoms or vice versa. He endorsed the Atlantic Council's research, describing it as ‘groundbreaking’ for accurately identifying the linkage between freedom and prosperity. According to him, freedom is not merely a consequence of prosperity but serves as the fundamental engine driving it forward.
In his foreword for the ‘2024 Atlas: Freedom and Prosperity Around the World’, published by the Atlantic Council, Daron Acemoglu, renowned for his work in ‘Why Nations Fail’, emphasises the centrality of institutions in development, particularly liberal democratic ones. While institutions play a crucial role in achieving material prosperity, their nature and operation vary across regions. The key criterion lies in whether these institutions effectively engage the majority and function efficiently.
French President Emmanuel Macron advocates for greater efficiency and agility in European democracy. Ultimately, the government's legitimacy, and even its form, hinges on its performance. Whether through peaceful or violent means, governmental changes may occur due to perceived failures in performance, a principle applicable not only to China but also to any Western democracy.
When examining the relationship between freedom and prosperity, it’s crucial to contextualise it within the historical stage of development. In emerging economies, the process of primitive accumulation can appear harsh. Similar brutality was witnessed in the past when the West exploited colonies and non-Western populations during the early stages of capitalism. Despite this, Bangladesh surpasses many Western countries in terms of economic development at this stage.
The West, particularly the US, initially hoped that fostering economic prosperity in China would naturally lead to political freedom. However, this expectation has not materialised, leading to frustration. The latest report expresses concerns about the sustainability of the Chinese and Singaporean economies.
As they grapple with this dilemma, it remains unclear how the West will reconcile diminishing democracy with India's forecasted GDP growth by the IMF. To address this, they have expanded the definition of ‘prosperity’. However, in this report, prosperity is narrowly defined as individual human prosperity, excluding critical factors like infrastructural development. Bangladesh’s significant achievements in infrastructure have been overlooked in this broadened definition.
Interestingly, the West often prioritises economic liberalism above other concerns such as democracy and rights. The architect of neoliberalism, FA Hayek, notably visited Chile to lend support to military dictators who had ousted the democratically elected President Salvador Allende, with backing from the US.
Neoliberalism advocates for shock therapy, where complete liberalisation, including privatisation, is implemented, with the belief that the economy may initially falter but will eventually experience rapid growth. However, the application of this theory has often resulted in havoc for many countries.
Freedom alone cannot guarantee prosperity. In least-developed countries like Bangladesh, governments should prioritise investments in health, education, food security, and other social services. Embracing Amartya Sen’s concept of Development as Freedom (1999), the combination of freedom and equality holds the promise of ushering in a realm of prosperity and security on earth.
Let’s end this short piece with an example to showcase how scoring in different subindexes is ideologically biased. The Freedom and Prosperity in Bangladesh report for April 2024 highlights Bangladesh’s property rights score of 17.2 out of 100. Interestingly, the 2024 assessment by the US Treasury Department acknowledges some progress in Bangladesh's recent efforts to promote intellectual property rights.
However, there seems to be a neoliberal bias in the approach to property rights, potentially undermining Bangladesh’s focus on social welfare. If Bangladesh were to remove state and cooperative ownership from Article 13 and certain sections of Article 47 of its Constitution, its score might significantly improve. Yet, such a move would deviate from the principles of building a social welfare state. Ultimately, Bangladesh must uphold the ethos of its liberation war, emphasising values of equality, human dignity, and social justice.
*Professor Dr Mizanur Rahman, former chairman, National Human Rights Commission