Political reading of the budget and a distressing survey

From the looks of the newspapers on 7 June this year, one would hardly realise that political intolerance and animosity has sent our newspaper cartoons into exile. Everyone seemed to have found grounds on that day to confidently come up with cartoons. The front pages of all the mainstream newspapers that day carried a variety of cartoons featuring the budget and the finance minister. Of course, other than finance minister Mahmud Ali, there was also a depiction of what impact the budget would have on different sections of the society.

Like the cartoons, another matter that was highlighted in the newspapers was the reactions and analyses by various quarters who were in favour of the budget and those who opposed it. A positive side to these discussions was that the people got to know the economic priorities of the government and the beneficiaries of the budget. It is not that these matters were completely unknown. However, when these issues are correlated with the pros and cons of the budget and its impact on daily life, this carries significance. The problem with these economic discussions is that most of the time the matter of political considerations remains tucked away in the background. As a result, the political crisis also remains hidden, while the crisis steadily mounts.

The evaluation by most economists concerning the budget that has been proposed for the coming financial year, is that is it rife with injustices. Loan defaulters, money launderers, those who get special favours from the government (such as those who receive payments in the name of capacity charge in private sector power production) will benefit, while the sufferings will multiply for the common people. The people will suffer even more from indirect taxes than direct taxation. The contradictions are more than apparent in the fact that black (undisclosed) money can be whitened (legitimised) simply by paying a 15 per cent tax, while the honest taxpayers who regularly pay taxes on their fixed incomes, will even have to pay taxes on gifts like mobiles.

When Benazir Ahmed, the police officer who had been in the top office of law enforcement, bought his daughters flats as gifts, he didn’t have to pay any “gift tax” and now perhaps he will even be able to legitimise his illegitimate earnings by paying a 15 per cent tax. Even the chairman of the National Board of Revenue (NBR) couldn’t say if there was any legal obstacle to this. But when a freshly graduated young man or woman gets a job and then marries, they will have to pay taxes even on the gifts of jewelry or mobile phones they may receive. It is a living manifestation of the master filmmaker Satyajit Roy’s satirical dialogue, “Hungry remain though you may/Royal taxes you’ll have to pay” (translated).

From the angle of Awami League’s political and ideological aims and objectives, what could the explanation be for this stance? Let’s look at the facts and figures. If we look at the affidavits of the candidates who contested in the 7 January so-called election boycotted by all except Awami League and its partners in the alliance, we will see that there are now at least 199 businesspersons in parliament, that is, two-thirds of the parliament members. And the vast majority of them are from Awami League. This domination of businessmen isn’t just from now, but that has been on a steady rise, reaching a record in this parliament and the immediate past one.

Other than businesspersons, the number of wealthy is even more startling. Almost 90 per cent of the members of parliament are multimillionaires. There are four MPs who are part of the syndicate that sends workers to Malaysia, making billions and billions in the process. Over the past few parliaments, readymade garment exporters dominated the scene and this parliament is no exception. There is hardly any doubt that the cash incentives for exports have boosted their wealth. There are real estate businessmen, private bank founder directors, share market brokerage house owners too in the parliament, some even in the cabinet.

It is not that one can't be a member of parliament or can't be a minister if one is a businessperson. But surely there is no need to point out the dominance of their numbers in parliament, their visible influence in policy making and the tangible impact of this, the absence of farmers, workers or small entrepreneurs and the abundance of decisions that go against their interests. At a time when the people all over the country are vocal about the unfairness of the tax proposal, during budget discussions in the parliament there were calls for an expansion of the scope to whiten black money. Not only that, but special concessions were even sought for investment of black money in the share market, already floundering under scams and manipulations.

Political scientist Rounaq Jahan well describes the manner in which businesspersons exert their influence in policy making. She says, "Certain businessmen are exploiting the developed nexus between politics and business. Due to their influence in politics and parliament, they shape policies to suit their own interests. Consequently, those involved in business syndicates, irregularities in the banking sector, or occupying banks are not held accountable. Their political influence shields them from reforms that may threaten their interests."

This transformation in Awami League politics, where the interests of businesspersons are given priority and importance, did not take place overnight. Remaining in term for 15 years at a stretch has accelerated the process. This transformation steadily became extreme and visible when people's votes lost value. With elections void of voting, and votes being ostensibly being cast on the night before, the politicians no longer were held accountable. The members of parliament just need to keep the top echelons of the ruling party happy. They do not want accountability of the government. They just turn up in parliament to say "yes" to anything and everything. Clearly, unless it is possible to restore functional democracy, no amount of criticism of the budget will change anything. So priority must be placed on fixing politics.

It came as no surprise when the survey conducted by Asia Foundation and the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD) this year indicated that 58 per cent of the people expressed their dismay that Bangladesh was on the wrong track.  In 2019, a total of 84 per cent of the respondents from the low income bracket said Bangladesh's economy was on the right track. This halved in 2024 to 42 per cent. The survey revealed that it is not just among the low income people, but among people of all income brackets, that expectations in economy and politics have decreased. When all ways and means have been blocked to change the direction of politics which steadily progresses on the path of economic disparity, it is only natural that people's expectations will wane.

* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist

* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir