Deception unravelled

Those who analyse the realities of their times also deliver messages of change as this author had longed to see the end of despotic rule. This piece does not argue that autocratic rule yields higher national growth, rather it questions whether it is suitable for development at all.

Political thinkers can debate whether modern democracy and development complement or conflict with each other. But do the fallen autocrats, who stole national resources, crushed dissent and escaped public anger, deserve any opportunity to join such debates? None at home or abroad is aware of any change in their position -- the Hasina rule, devoid of democratic norms, is the panacea for all their problems, they believe.

In the wake of the recent power crisis and reported slide in law and order, some critics are trying to challenge the narrative behind why Sheikh Hasina was forced to relinquish power by the mass uprisings on August 5, 2024. They expose not only who they are but also what they want to say: fascism, synonymous with Hasina and her party Awami League (AL), is better than democracy.

The opposition in parliament, particularly Jamaat-e-Islami and National Citizens' Party, demonstrate against the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led government. Activists criticise whoever and whatever they want to on social media.

But those who found their comfort zone in the enforced silence during the Hasina regime have been disturbed by the vibrancy of democratic order in society. The more enthusiastic ones expect an improbable political comeback of the deposed party and its leader.

The Awami minds of fasciomafia are not attuned to democracy, as proven by their fear of facing the people and losing elections. They see no progress in a democratic Bangladesh other than what had been attained during their own rule. In that case, look at growth during the one-party BKSAL rule of Hasina's father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 -- minus 4%. The economy grew at 3.8-4.0% during the autocratic rule of her political brother HM Ershad between 1982 and 1990 -- the dark era of growth.

However, Bangladesh achieved steadily higher growth, breaking the shackles of poverty and undemocratic order in the 1990s. The decade that coincided with a new journey of the electoral system saw a 1% increase in economic growth to around 5%, while 6% was recorded in the subsequent decade.

Some foreign players endorsed the bragging by Hasina supporters that Bangladesh had made a leapfrog with 7% growth during her 15-year rule, termed undemocratic. Neither the momentum gained during the previous 16 years of a reasonably fair electoral system nor the doctoring of growth statistics was taken into account while giving all credit for Bangladesh's development to the Hasina regime.

To the credit of her rule, the country experienced how powerful people could make money by exploiting inflated projects, looting banks, manipulating the stock market, blackmailing people with higher power and energy supply costs, extorting businesses in every market and public place and embezzling public funds.

This was the period (2009-2024) when, official data showed, GDP (gross domestic product) rose from $102 billion to $450 billion, an aggregate growth of $348 billion. However, two-thirds of the growth, or $234 billion, had been siphoned off during the period.

Would it have been possible to misappropriate the growth had people had their voices heard then? That confirms that nothing of such development, an excuse of the AL for staying in power by rigging elections, was meant for the people of Bangladesh.

Now, after the democratic transition heralded by the July 2024 revolution, some disguised players would ask why business and investment are yet to gain momentum and massive numbers of jobs have not yet been created. And the banking sector hasn't come out of unbearable non-performing loans.

Hasina-lenient critics would soon blame the elected BNP government for such issues while ignoring from whom it inherited the economic crisis. Which of the following challenges is a new addition after the ouster of the AL regime: high utility costs, widespread corruption and extortion, poor government service delivery, or the $100 billion-plus debt-servicing liability affecting public welfare spending?

After several attempts to reject Hasina's tyrannical rule, which patronised oligarchs, the people managed to demonstrate on August 5, 2024, how little they admired her model of development, proving instead how passionately they aspired to democracy. Her corporate-bureaucratic capture of the state, undermining people's representation, did not support the commoners' right to benefit from growth.

Development means people's development if they can raise their demands in running the state. Globally, most developed countries, measured by human development, follow electoral systems of governance. Even the worst democratic government has to care about public rights and welfare before enforcing regulations that favour business, especially profit maximisation. Hasina had no democratic compulsion not to say or do anything uncivil.

In a contrasting instance, Prime Minister Tarique Rahman has reportedly asked a ruling party member of parliament to resign over her alleged land-grabbing scheme. His is a popularly elected government that has no reason to be ashamed of correcting mistakes or revising a decision that affects public life, apart from listening to people when setting development priorities.

Economic development is not for making a country fit for democracy but is to be achieved through democracy, Professor Wahiduddin Mahmud noted in a book titled Markets, Morals and Development, in the fashion of economist Amartya Sen's dictum that "a country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy".

Gone are the days when some dishonest elements floated a debate on whether Bangladesh needed democracy or development. The nation's answer is: We need democracy for development. Bangladeshis cannot go back to the dark era of progress.

--

Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist. He can be reached at khawaza@gmail.com.