[5 August, Dhaka Courier, 11 September, New Nation & 15 September 2011 Financial Express]
From legal point of view Bangladesh does not need to be worried about the forecasts of Failed States Index, starting from 2005 to 2011, prepared by the US-based think-think Fund for Peace and Published by Foreign Policy Magazine since they don’t have any legal basis nationally or internationally. Even the very definition of failed states is yet to be settled conceptually with due attention and weight to its operational aspect as well. There is no denying the fact that the indicators being used for a determination of the status of a state on all accounts are organically tied to the concept of ‘failed governments’ not to the concept of ‘failed states’ at any rate. It is further understood and experienced that a state may fail or fall either by voluntary annexation to, or by occupation by another state while it is a party or coalition or junta in power in the name of government in a state, which fails or falls for the reasons, election or otherwise. Somalia is a glaring and standing example since in spite of her having been measured as the number one in the ‘alert’ category of the failed states for the three successive years from 2008 to 2011, it still exists and continues as a state with a membership in UN.
Hence, the concept of failed states is a misnomer and, instead, the concept of crisis states is more logical and pragmatic in its entirety. Fund for Peace’s opening note itself echoes the same spirit when it firmly holds ‘the FSI focuses on the indicators of risk and is based on thousands of articles and reports that are processed by our CAST Software from electronically available sources [attention to my articles ‘Failed States: Conceptual Understanding and Misunderstanding’, Daily Star, 25 February 2008, ‘Conceptual Understanding of Failed States, New Nation, 8 July 2008 and ‘Failed States: Conceptual Focus, Dhaka Courier,8 July 2011].
Notwithstanding that the other side of the coin is that, to speak the truth, the indicators being used for determining a status or location of a state in the annual index rarely be set aside or overlooked or undermined flatly because of their sector-wise and overall weight, importance, relevance, implications and appeals on the grounds other than the legal one.
In Bangladesh’s perspective, therefore, it needs to be understood with a proper care and absorption for the reason that her standing is also projected there regularly with a category, zone, rating, rank and status on the basis of twelve indicators of which four are under social indicators namely,1.demographic pressure 2.massive movement of refugees and internally displaced people 3.Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance based on recent or past injustices and 4.Chronic and sustained human rights, two have been put under economic indicators covering 5.Uneven economic development along group lines and 6.Sharp or severe economic decline and six remain under political indicators entailing 7.Criminalization and or delegitimisstion of the state 8.Progressive deterioration of public services 9.Widespread violation of human rights 10.Security apparatus as ‘state within a state’, 11. Rise of factionalized elites and 12.Intervention of other states or external factors.
Rating for each indicator are placed on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and 10 being the highest intensity (least stable). The total score is the sum of the 12 indicators and is on a scale of 0-120, and, accordingly, the failed states are categorized into Alert, Warning, No Information/ Dependent Territory, Moderate and Sustainable based on their proximity to the total sum of the 12 indicators.
Annual position of Individual indicator in case of Bangladesh stood as 8.6,5.8,9.6,8.4,9,0,6.9,9.0,7.4,,7.8,8.0,9.3,5.9 in 2007, 9.8,7.1,9.7,8.4,9.0,7.1,9.1,7.8,8.0,8.3,9.6,9.4 in 2008, 8.9,6.9, 9.4,8.4,8.8,7.9,8.0,8.3,7.4,8.1,8.9,6.5 in 2009, 8.4,6.7,8.9,8.4,8.8,7.9,8.0,8.3,7.4,8.1,8.9,6.2 in 2010 and 8.3,6.5,9.2,8.1,8.4,7.7,8.0,8.0,7.1,7.9,8.9,6.2 in 2011.
Bangladesh has been placed in the ‘Alert’ category i.e. the lowest category of the FSI. Therefore, Bangladesh is an alert state with a trend of rise and fall in status. Of the lowest 20 states, Bangladesh’s position was 17 with a total score of 94.3 on a scale of 120 in the FSI 2005; she went back to 19 with a total score of 96.3 in the FSI 2006; she came down to 16 with a total score of 95.9 in the FSI 2007; she went down further to 12 with a total score of 100.3 in the FSI 2008; she went up to 19 with a total score of 98.1 in the FSI 2009; she rose further to 24 with a total score of 91.1 in the FSI 2010 and in the FSI 2011 she rose further more to 25 with a total score of 94.4. All the five core state institutions say, leaderships, military and judiciary are said to be ‘weak’ while police and civil service are held to be poor.
So, Bangladesh’s rotation around and ups and down from 17 to 25 in the ‘alert’ hemisphere till the date of the publication of FSI, 2011 cannot but raise few questions as follows:
Question no. 1: Who are responsible for all these? Reply is, our leaders. Question no. 2: why should they be held responsible for? Answer is, because they have voluntarily chosen so, and are pledge-bound publicly through their manifestos, programs and parties to play a role for the overall developments in almost all respects whether in power or in opposition. Question no. 3: Should they alone are accountable? Answer is, predominantly for the reason that leadership is guardianship; guardianship means responsibility with directions, supervision and monitoring feedbacks and the question no. 4 and last is: What are to be done now? Answer is, highest degree of dedication, honest commitment and sacrifices have to be shown by them in action, not in mere sweet words.
Hence, FSIs may definitely be an eye opener for our political leadership. Yes, it’s a foregone conclusion that in a democratic state politics, political parties, political leaderships and developments are inherently so inter-linked and inter-dependent that one can hardly survive and flower without other and of all types of leaderships in a state political leadership ranks high being the centre of all (attention to my article ‘Understanding the music of Leadership: Bangladesh Perspective’, 13 June 2011, New Nation].
Speaking in the superlative, politics is an art of making impossible a possible paving the way for the beneficiaries, people, to invest energy and time to achieve the goals. When the domain of politics is taken over by so-called opportunists and season-birds under the cap of leadership, it’s then called a beginning of the decline of leadership proper. Bangladesh today has been hostage to few leaders of AL, BNP and JP as a result of which people have become a kind of sandwich being in-between them.
Yes, I must utter and warn in a high volume that still there is a time, space and dimension to open the doors for new committed, sincere, dedicated and patriotic leadership. Let the nation, at the minimum at least, welcome and congratulate Obaidul Quader, member of the presidium of AL, for his courageous and relentless voicing and echoing the call, need and urge of time in spite of his having been situated within the fold of grand coalition. Let others, ruling or opposition, be inspired and dauntless standing by the people. We don’t want to see Bangladesh’s status in the alert category in the coming days. We don’t want to listen repeatedly from the mouth of our leaders, in particular from opposition’s platform, that a deep-rooted conspiracy is on to make Bangladesh a failed state. May Allah bless us all and long live Bangladesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment