Election without contest will lead to a long-term crisis

In which direction is the country's political situation headed?

Perhaps astrologers can answer this best. I am no astrologer.

As an economist and a political analyst, what is your take on the situation where one side is preparing for the election and the other is demanding the resignation of the government?

Rather than viewing the matter from the angle of the political actors, the responsible thing would be to look at it in the light of Bangladesh's future prospects. We have to analyse the political and economic future. Politics cannot be isolated from economics. No matter what official label may be given to the election, it is without contest. It is questionable whether the voters will be interested in such an election. If the election is a competitive one, then one gets confidence.

The question is, will the demands and the aspirations of the people be met by this show of an election towards which the country is headed. A competitive election is required for credibility at home and abroad. Bangladesh had boldly brought many factors to the fore. We are dreaming of becoming a middle-income country, a developed country, wanting to graduate from being a least developed country to a developing country, but an election without contest many prove to be an obstacle to achieving these aspirations.

At this moment do you see any possibility of a competitive election?

You must display your good intentions if you want to hold a meaningful, credible and competitive election. The government, in particular, must display its commitment. The election schedule can be reset. If you want a competitive election, you must give the competitors a chance to enter the fray. Many of the opposition leaders are in jail. There are even questions about the legal process in which they have been sent to jail. There are even questions about the speedy manner in which the opposition leaders and activists are being tried.

The government can show its good intentions by moving away from its strategy of imprisoning the main contenders and take legal steps to release them. Good intentions can also be displayed by removing persons from the election commission who were involved in the previous controversial elections.

If that is done, will the opposition move away from the hartals and blockades which they are enforcing?

The opposition will face a moral pressure then. The people will say, the government had made these concessions, now you all concede too. But that will depend on how sincere the government's steps are and what message of change these convey. The bottom line is, a space of trust in the true sense of the word, must be created.

Every five years when the election comes around in our country, the political parties take sides. Violence breaks out. How can this be resolved?

It has not been possible to develop the structural base of an election in a democratic system here. Then again, those in power have the propensity to keep everything within their own control. After 1990, the process of handing over power by means of fair elections was created, but we failed to hold on to that. The last two elections have been particularly controversial.

There are two sides to election management. One is technical and the other is political. The election commission looks after the technical side. But if the political management is not right, that will not be effective either. I saw a Prothom Alo report stating that the election commission was apathetic about the legal authority it held. I would call this voluntary inaction. If you remain indifferent about any violation that takes place in front of you, that means you are not performing your responsibility.

In the newspapers we see people entering the confidential polling booths where no one but the voters is allowed, and stamping the ballot papers as they please. Turning a blind eye to this is also inaction. The civil society can draw up a list of where the election rules are being breached. But it is political management that is more important. And that is about creating the field for competition, to ensure that all contestants can take part in the election. There are many countries where parties which were once very popular couldn't hold on to that popularity and so the opposing party came back to power repeatedly.

But the reality in Bangladesh is that the two major political parties (Awami League and BNP) have almost equal public support. Then there are 20 to 25 per cent of the voters outside of this, who lean towards different sides at different times. Another thing is, if there is an election without contest, a large section of the voters remains out of the process. That means the verdict of the voters is not reflected. This is an injustice to these voters. The credibility of an election without competition is also questionable. This may pitch us into a long-term crisis.

You mentioned that this political unrest has an impact on the economy. What sort of impact?

The prototypical accountability that we see in books is hardly feasible here. What we need here is to achieve an accountability through competition. If this is weak or absent, then even the meritorious within a party will not come forward. They will be dropped. So there is need for competition to create qualified leadership within a party and also to run the state. If the election is without contest, then the leaders and activists get the idea that getting nomination means sure victory.

If the election is without contest, corruption spreads too. For example, the government switched to e-tenders in order to stop tender manipulations. That was a good step. However, there too it was seen only one persons submitted the bid.

There are two levels in economic management -- technical and policy. It is often seen that political influence is wielded on technical management. If the election is without contest, this will influence policy planning too. Political considerations will be given priority.

Everyone had hoped for a free, fair and participatory election this time. The ruling party leaders too had said that they do not want an election as in 2014 and 2018. So why aren't we getting a free, fair and inclusive election?

Everyone must take the blame for this. But those in power have the most responsibility. It must also be seen whether the opposition had any mistakes in their strategy. The majority of the people had hoped that some sort of way would emerge so that there wouldn't be a zero-sum game. But that scope has slipped away. The civil society has to take blame too. It cannot be said that their activities reflect any holistic thinking.

How would you evaluate the events of 28 October?

The events of 28 October are unfortunate. This shouldn't have happened. Before 28 October, the people had been hoping for some sort of solution. The ruling party too had been saying that they want an inclusive election. The opposition too had adopted a non-violent movement. There was a challenge in their demands. But 28 October changed everything.

Does that mean both sides have reached a point of no-return?

I would say that the point of no-return has been carved in stone. We should drop this word in the interests of the people, in consideration of the future of the new generation. I think there is need of an uprising of good intentions. There is need for an impartial inquiry in what actually happened on 28 October. Then again, there are no satisfactory or credible explanations about the manner in which the government has shoved the opposition leaders and activists into jail over the incident of that day. Many have been convicted ostensibly on legal grounds.

Law is a matter of paper, then again there is the matter of spirit. After 28 October, the drive to hold a one-sided election has gained momentum and that controls everything. The opposition may be carrying out some programmes, but they are also on a precarious position. So long they had been talking about a non-violent movement. They too need to think of the strategy of their movement. I would say that the need for inclusive politics, and elections must be recognised for the sake of Bangladesh, the economy and the future. That is why I say there is a need for an uprising of good intentions.

There are differences between the government and the opposition on the question of the economy too. The government claims that they have carried out vast development in the country, while the opposition says that the economy is on the brink of collapse. How do you see things, as an economist?

When discussing about the economy, they all discuss separate indicators. The government discusses one indicator. The opposition or the economists discuss a different indicator. But we need to discuss this in a holistic manner. It is true that we have undergone infrastructural development and the size of the economy has expanded. But quantity and quality is not the same thing. Arriving at 2023 if we take the rate of increase in education as a benchmark of development, that will not do.

We need to look into the achievements of education. If a student gets five years of education after going to school for 11 years, that would be a partial indicator. Think of the health sector. In 2012 the government decided to decrease the healthcare costs per person from 65 per cent to 32 per cent by the year 2025. But that had gone up to 72 per cent. We tackled Covid well, but have failure to control dengue.

If we analyse the overall economy, certain indicators have reached to an alarming level. For example, there is the macroeconomic imbalance, the dollar crisis and the burden of foreign debt. As a developing country like Bangladesh with little resources, we have to display efficient spending. We are not able to reach development and our aspired targets due to inefficiency in spending. And look at the economic indicators at an individual level. What do the long lines in front of the TCB trucks prove? The common people are suffering. It is alarming that just as in the case of politics, there is no competition in the field of economy either. An imbalance has been created.

The common people have kept the economy afloat. They endeavour to change their fortune. Yet the state, the government, politics, does no respect them. They are not given priority in our economic policy planning. It is the favoured and benefitted class that are begin priority. In many cases laws are formulated to indulge corruption. Previously, only one member of a family could be on the board of a bank, now that is over three members. This sends a message to the hard-working entrepreneurs that no matter how hard you work, the attention will be given to the persons in the sphere of power. Such circumstances will attract neither local or foreign investors. Another matter is that our policymakers are unable to emerge from the mindset of cheap labour. Unless they can shake off this obsession with cheap labour, Bangladesh will simply continue running with cheap labour.

Per capita income is being projected as 2500 dollars. But no one is saying what the medium income is. You are making all that noise over the increased income of the upper 40 per cent, but are saying nothing at all about the lower 40 per cent. Those representing the government are not accountable. If we are to materialise a developed Bangladesh, a middle-income Bangladesh, a competitive election and an accountable government is required.

Despite the US visa policy, pressure from the European Union, urging by the civil society, we have not got an inclusive election. Is geopolitics the reason behind this? There is the US and EU on one side of the Bangladesh election, with China and Russia on the other side.

While Bangladesh is a South Asian country small in size, it has a population of 170 million. Certain quarters may certainly view Bangladesh from a geopolitical angle. To me, more attention should be paid to the geo-economy. It is the western countries that have a larger role in Bangladesh’s connectivity with the global economy. The US and EU are the major markets for our readymade garment export. If we want to use geopolitics for immediate gratification, the problems will remain long term. We feel that Bangladesh with its 170 million people will be able to go a long way. If our politics and economy policy planning is correct, we can hope for a developed and prosperous country. Again, geopolitical considerations are not fixed. They can change. Look at the Middle East. There has to be a balance in both geopolitics and eco-economics.

Many of our youth didn’t get a chance to vote in the past two elections. If the election is not competitive this time either, they will yet again be unable to vote.

Only recently a young person came to me and said, we have never known what it is like to vote. It is not that he is a very politically conscious person. I would say, overall, we have done great injustice to the youth. Those in charge of political, social and cultural areas are all responsible. Our priority should have been, above all, to build up the capacity of the youth. But our education system has been reduced to enrollment rates and passing rates. We are not making an effort to build their capacity. The youth are not asking for anything extra. They say, we will work and change our fate. Simply fix the rules and regulations. Get rid of the irregularities. Ensure that we can enjoy the results of our hard work.

Only recently a young person came to me and said, we have never known what it is like to vote. It is not that he is a very politically conscious person. I would say, overall, we have done great injustice to the youth. Those in charge of political, social and cultural areas are all responsible. Our priority should have been, above all, to build up the capacity of the youth. But our education system has been reduced to enrollment rates and passing rates. We are not making an effort to build their capacity. The youth are not asking for anything extra. They say, we will work and change our fate. Simply fix the rules and regulations. Get rid of the irregularities. Ensure that we can enjoy the results of our hard work.

Thank you

Thank you too