A contract was signed on Monday with two foreign companies for the operation of two terminals at Chittagong Port. The agreement was concluded with unusual haste. One section has raised questions about whether an interim government has the authority to sign such contracts, while the government has issued various explanations in response. Anu Muhammad, former professor at Jahangirnagar University, expresses his opinion on the agreement
The primary responsibility of an interim government is to oversee a reasonably fair election and to facilitate a democratic transition. And, to conduct reforms that are required for this. The national election is only a few months away. All attention should now be on ensuring what is needed for a credible election: improving law and order, and restoring a sense of security among people at every level. Yet the government shows no focus or activity on any of these fronts.
Instead of concentrating on election-related responsibilities, the government is showing keen interest in long-term agreements, over which it has no jurisdiction. It is virtually forcing these deals through. It is signing one after another agreements without listening to the people of the country or to experts, and without considering national interests, relying instead on intimidation.
An interim government simply does not have the mandate to sign long-term contracts of this nature. These require an elected government. Even an elected government cannot proceed in this way: such agreements must be placed before parliament, debated, and explained to the public. With only a few months left before the election, why is this government so eager to push through such deals? If these long-term port agreements are genuinely in the interest of national development, then why the secrecy, the lack of transparency, and the extraordinary haste?
The government’s unusual enthusiasm is deeply suspicious. It appears as though certain lobbyists for foreign companies are effectively running the government. Their task seems to be ensuring, at any cost, that opaque long-term deals are signed to protect foreign corporate interests, agreements so enduring that future governments will struggle to change them. Yet it is the people of Bangladesh who will carry the burden of these contracts for many years.
This is a betrayal of the expectations created through the mass uprising, expectations of transparency, adherence to rules, and responsible governance. At the same time, political parties that are engaged in dialogue with the government but have remained silent about these activities, which undermine national interests, must also accept responsibility for that silence.
We have often seen the same arguments used before such deals: that the foreign company involved is a world-class entity; that we, as a country, are incapable; that nothing is possible without foreign involvement; that corruption is inevitable if we handle things ourselves; but it will disappear when foreigners are involved.
Such inferiority complexes are manufactured and used to justify the advantages granted to foreign companies. Beneficiaries inside the country help propagate these narratives. But what guarantees are there that foreigners will not engage in corruption? Is there no corruption internationally? Even the pre-contract hike in port charges is itself a form of corruption.
Foreign companies became competent and internationally recognised through processes that built national capability. Bangladesh must also stand on its own capabilities. For that, we need to strengthen our institutions. A country stands strong only when its own capacities are built. This government is taking us in the opposite direction, endangering the nation’s future.