Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IN BANGLADESH
MOHAMMAD MOHABBAT KHAN
The following sections contain an analysis of the state of governance in
Bangladesh and are based on the framework presented above. It is apparent that
any analysis of governance in this country, like any other, needs to be broadbased
and issue-oriented.
practice has also landed many private sector banks in the quagmire of default
loans. The sponsors, promoters and beneficiaries of this default loan culture all
belong to the upper strata of society and consequently protect each other. The
middle class and salaried people are squeezed constantly by increasing rises in
the prices of essential commodities, house rents, children’s educational
expenses, medical bills and taxes. The toiling masses struggle endlessly to
barely survive in a man-made unjust world.
Social disparity among different strata of the population continues to deepen.
Contrasting values and conflicting ethos are evident. Morality has become the
biggest casualty at the present time. Nobody talks about ethics anymore (Khan
et al, 1995: 596). Corruption has become so endemic that it has engulfed both
public and private sectors and touched and affected, in one way or another,
many individuals in Bangladesh. So it is little wonder that the country enjoys the
dubious distinction of being perhaps the most corrupt country in the whole
world. No one seems to be too worried about this. This may be because the
policy makers of Bangladesh have accepted the reality and feel that nothing
needs to be done about it.
Political system
A country’s political system plays a pivotal rôle in shaping its destiny for good
or bad. Political parties, the structure of government, civil society and international
donors all in varying degrees influence or attempt to influence the
nature of the political system in Bangladesh.
Political parties, whether big or small, become most visible during election
time. At other times they organize protest meetings if they are in opposition and
bring out processions in support of government policies and actions if they
are in power. But serious questions have been raised in terms of the nature of
leadership, the sources and utilization of party funds and the nomination of
candidates for key elections. All parties profess to adhere to democratic
principles. But the reality is different. Even for senior leaders of the two major
political parties (holding memberships of central committees and presidiums) it
is risky to disagree with, let alone challenge, the two supreme leaders (Khan and
Husain, 1996: 329–330). Both the supreme leaders of the Awami League (AL)
and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) were given leadership positions
with very little or no previous political experience. Heredity and kinship were
the key determinants of their accession to power. The country’s two major
political parties thus survive on family tradition (Acharyia, 2002: 17). For the
past 32 years AL leaders at the central level have never been elected and
nurturing intra-party democracy has proved to be even more difficult for BNP.
The constant fragmentation of other parties like the Jatiya Party (JP) and Jatiya
Samajtantrick Dal (JSD) into many factions is primarily the result of the absence
of a democratic culture in internal decision-making processes among such
parties. Naturally, the top leadership remains unchanged even after a major party
loses major national elections. This permanent nature of the supreme leadership
has a number of adverse consequences for the healthy development of politics
and political parties in the country. Weaklings and sycophants have become
prominent in the parties’ decision-making processes. Capable and effective
leaders cannot be groomed. The succession for the supreme leader becomes
hazardous. Adherence to a genuinely democratic ethos is thwarted by internal
party politics and management (Khan and Zafarullah, 1990: 315–317).
The effective functioning of each and every organ of government is an
essential prerequisite of good governance. In Bangladesh the dominant position
of the executive within the political system is widely known. The parliamentary
system that has been in existence without interruption for a little over a decade
can best be termed a prime ministerial system. The prime minister enjoys and
exercises an enormous array of power to the detriment of the legislature.
A rather large and unwieldy cabinet consisting of 64 individuals is neither
effective nor necessary. It is doubtful whether major policies are thoroughly
discussed and analysed in cabinet meetings. Monitoring the implementation of
policies is an area where cabinet has not been successful. Thus there should be a
critical rôle for career civil servants.
The present size of the civil service is large compared with the tasks it
performs (Khan, 1998). But reform-resistant public sector officials and
employees are mostly poorly paid, ill disciplined and improperly trained. All
these facts are linked with the overall work culture of this country and the way
they are recruited. Avoiding responsibility for decisions and the non-meritbased
selection of personnel combined together has created a situation where
competence is lacking. This lack of competence has created an environment of
uncertainty, uneasiness and paranoia in the civil service. The greatest casualty of
this situation is the ordinary citizen, who has to be content with poor service
delivery, corruption and the bad behaviour of street-level bureaucrats.
The Jatiya Sangsad (parliament) is supposed to be at the centre of all activities
in a parliamentary system. Instead, parliament has become the vehicle
for passing bills sponsored by the government sometimes with very little
deliberation. Committees lie at the heart of a parliament. But committees are yet
to be formed in the present parliament thanks to bickering between the government
and the opposition with regard to fixing the number of members from the
treasury and the major opposition party. The parliament has been unable to
perform its designated rôle as controller and overseer of executive actions. None
of the governments that came to power since the restoration of the parliamentary
system has allowed it to function properly (Khan, 2001). As a result it has
not been possible to ensure accountability and transparency of governmental
functionaries. In the past when committees were formed they could not perform
in any satisfactory manner for a number of reasons. Committees were not
given adequate logistical and other support. They could not conduct their own
investigation into allegations of corruption and mismanagement. Hearings were
conducted mostly in camera. Committee directives, whether implemented or
not, could not be ascertained in many cases, mostly because of the unwillingness
of senior civil servants to keep the committees informed on a regular basis.
Because of a lack of adequate and appropriate training many law makers are not
sure what their exact rôle is. The process of law making is tedious and technical
in nature and one needs to go through a well designed orientation course to
master the process. One of the adverse consequences of this situation is that law
makers get too involved in all local development efforts and create conflict with
locally elected representatives and central government officials deputed in the
field, thereby thwarting development activities.
Judicial independence is a fundamental prerequisite for a society premised on
the rule of law. Although the Constitution speaks volumes about the separation
of the judiciary, this has not taken place after 30 years of independence. A
number of amendments to the Constitution leave the judiciary dependent on the
executive in several critical areas, including appointment of judges to the
Supreme Court, financial grant and logistical support. The lower judiciary’s
ability to function properly, it is alleged, has been considerably eroded by
constant government interference in its domain. Also the training of judges at
lower level is still inadequate and infrequently undertaken.
Bangladesh has a rich history of local initiatives undertaken voluntarily by
individuals and groups. But community-based organizations (CBOs) and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) as key components of civil society became
vocal, visible and powerful in the 1980s and 1990s. Many initially welcomed the
emergence of CBOs and NGOs in the belief that they would not only serve and
empower the poor but would take on the state on their behalf. This has not
happened. NGO accountability remains murky in spite of successive governments’
efforts to monitor their fund receipts and disbursement (Khan, 2003).
The recent trend among some big NGOs to venture into commercial activities
has raised many questions about their status as organizations, rôle of the poor in
profit sharing, etc. The direct involvement of some big NGOs in national politics
supporting one of the big political parties has had a number of consequences.
The recent split in the Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh
(ADAB) is a case in point. Division among major NGOs with regard to their
rôle in the polity has seriously affected the credibility of the civil society in
general and NGOs in particular.
The rôle of the donor community in a country like Bangladesh is significant
as the country continues to depend heavily on the former’s aid and grants.
International multilateral organizations and major donors have openly expressed
their dissatisfaction with how the governance system works in Bangladesh
(World Bank, 1996; 2002). They have openly voiced concern about the
deteriorating law and order situation, continuing political turmoil, massive
corruption and inefficiency in the public sector, burgeoning size of the civil
service and failure to leave business activities to the private sector. There is a
strong unanimity of opinion among members of the donor community that
governance has weakened significantly in recent years mostly because of a lack
of collective improvement efforts.
So far we have discussed the state of governance in Bangladesh. In the
following sections we analyse the impact of poor governance in the country,
focusing on certain key variables.