11 October 2011, Daily New Nation
13 October 2011, Dhaka Courier
Once it is well understood that politics, political parties and leaderships aim at well-being of the people pulling the rope of development ahead with all possible commitments, integrity, strengths and dedications, not at lagging behind pulling the rope toward the back then the question is what does the word development actually imply and convey? In plain words development denotes marching forward with all stocks and loads qualitatively and quantitatively in a positive manner despite challenges, herculean or dilemmatic. It is a kind of music with full of rhythms, intonations and symphony. If any of the chords is disturbed anyhow under any circumstances development then is also affected resultantly. Its modes, targets, strategies, speed and operation are usually shaped and determined in the context of a country’s state of standing as a whole. From the territorial perspective, its ambit may range from local to national to regional to international spheres while from the topical standpoint, it may concentrate on one or more than one subjects at a time.
In fact, development in a narrow sense confines itself to a particular field of operation say, political development, economic development, cultural development and so forth whereas in a broad canvass it includes all most all subjects together since it is in totality considered multi-dimensional by nature. It is believed here also that the whole is truer than a part and parts together constitute the whole. If one part is taken care of neglecting the other/others the whole is supposed to suffer from a state of imbalance and so, today development commonly relates to the latter. Therefore, frequent synonymous use or equating of development with economic development solely is indeed a case of misapprehension.
It is now commonly accepted that the term development means more than just wealth or economic development. In 1990, United Nations replaced GNP as their measure of development with the Human Development Index (HDI), a social welfare index measuring three variables: life expectancy, (health), adult literacy (education) and real GNP per capita (standard of living). Since then the UN has published an annual report in which it ranks countries according to the quality of life of its inhabitants instead of using traditional economic figures.
Subsequently, a logical asking is how to meet with the challenges of development fruitfully in the real sense of theory and practice in the milieu of a state in issue? Keeping all the available theories, models, experiments and experiences in true perspective, the application and operation of the concept of development (as cited earlier) in a multiparty democratic order may be viewed through three broad canvasses as under:
1. Concept of development with a predominance of economic development in a fold of economy, democracy, good governance and human rights;
2. Concept of development with a predominance of political development in a wrinkle of democracy, human rights, good governance and economy; and
3. Concept of development with a synchronized/ concurrent harmonious/marching of all the areas markedly balancing democracy, economy, human rights, and good governance.
Because of the move from development to sustainable development resting on three or four pillars (provided cultural sustainability is included) the concept now carries more challenges to the process of concurrent harmonization.
Researches, surveys and studies further open out that in each of the canvasses there in practice exists and continues not one uniform model of development rather a variety of models (keeping as far as possible the basic theme or spirit alive) due to the constraints, limitations, compulsions, external or internal or the both, in particular and the peculiarities, necessities and foothold of the states in general therein. Hence, from adoptive, accommodative and operative viewpoints there cannot be one model in a canvass.
Speaking in the superlative, a close look at the countries which have in the meantime emerged as economic power internationally or regionally or even nationally may be enough to convince oneself about the possible sequence of development with feedbacks there from. There economic development preceded political development and then political development started flowering to meet with the increasing political rights and demands of the people. In those political systems multi-party democracy played less because it was then not so acute, sound and formidable as it is today. More interesting to note is that even democracy could not play a good deal in those set-ups. Once a model in canvass--1 got maturity and strong pedigree, a model in canvass—2 then as a sign of one step forward began to swell up with more and more opportunities and promises for the electorates and people at large broadening the door to mystery and honey of the dictum ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’ embracing democracy, politics, multi-party system, human rights and come what may not. Therefore, obviously, now the turn is for a model in canvass--3.
Today, ironically enough, choosing a model from or bringing forth a new one in canvass--3 is, necessarily or unnecessarily, more appealing, magnetic and popular to the people in the developing countries because of its all-encompassing characteristics, certainly overlapping and conflicting in many cases. Because here, plausibly or not, political development relatively preceded economic development giving birth to Himalayan challenge to road to economic development.
One ought to agree frankly that in the name of ‘concurrency approach’ or ‘maximum harmonious approach’(more difficult venture certainly) whatever the cap it wears, rapid economic development in a developing country can barely be achieved in practice keeping pace with time, space and dimension backed and geared up by the revolutions occurring constantly in the scientific and technological domains. If equal attention is attached to smooth functioning of multi-party democracy, human rights, good governance and economic development keeping the present western footing in mind, and being determined to ensure yielding benefits from all at a time that would definitely be a great blunder from the lessons and directions of history itself.
But this logic does not hold good in the changed political and democratic landscapes of the planet wherefrom arises a dilemma of development in the nation-states patently still in the womb of developing countries, which are mostly dependent on and influenced by the developed countries, international aid-giving and financial institutions such as world Bank, IMF, ADB in the wrap of development partners! (Critics in the final analysis insist on calling them shark not dolphin, friend in true sense).
Similarly, according democracy, human rights and good governance priority to economic development, it’s, if truth be told, a gargantuan undertaking for a developing state to make certain smooth, uninterrupted economic development. So, this model is not so much workable and practical in the strict perspective of developing countries.
Therefore, remains or comes a model as Hobson’s choice under the canopy of canvass-3. Reality unfurls the fact that this model inherently carries conflicts, contradictions and overlapping between or among areas therein paving avenues to dilemma. Further actuality is that hardly a stability as a whole can be achievable, sustainable and durable without at least having a capable/requited level of economic development on hand in a move onward with this fedora. Then how to win the battle, nay, the war to accelerate and guarantee unremitting speed of economic development under this set-up? Pragmatically, proportional balancing is neither possible nor desirable and a process of compromise, not of deduction must be there.
Furthermore, concept of sustainable development taking environmental, economic and sociopolitical sustainability (areas shall rise to four if cultural sustainability is included in future. It has strongly been argued by Indigenous peoples through various international forums such as United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Convention on Biological Diversity, that there are four pillars of sustainable development, the fourth being cultural. Further elaboration on the concept came from the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001).
To suit the purposes, now there needs a new revolution and rethinking so that economic development under this umbrella may find proper avenues to flourish without being troubled much by other areas such as democracy(politics, political parties, parliament, party/coalition-in power and oppositions), good governance and human rights. Think-tanks, researchers and experts of various backgrounds, shades, folds and opinions from local to national to regional to international domains and compacts may provide possible inputs. But to make certain positive output, optimum or above, initiatives must definitely come from political leadership as it involves a question of policy leading to decision accordingly.
Let us in addition recall the message of the book ‘Development as Freedom’ by Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen where he firmly holds the view that political liberties are to be treated necessarily as one of the carnal points of development for its sustainability as a whole in any administration. Without allowing and empowering the people to get involved in the affairs which deal with their interests and welfare, no viable system of development can be ensured and thus, he attaches importance to political freedom as pre-condition. Freedom to him means political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security. Each of them is complementary to each other, remaining interrelated and inextricable and all these constitute not only the means, but also the ends in development. Comparing the development strategies of India and China, he argued in his own style of reasoning that Indian democratic processes provide a firmer guarantee of long term stable growth. Sen did fell free to argue as well against the notion that a set of ‘Asian values’ exists that might provide justification for authoritarian regimes. In fact, he through his thoughts and expressions, verbal or in writing, brought an ‘ethical direction’ to a field recently dominated by technical specialists for which he was applauded by the Nobel Prize Committee also.
Time and tide waits for none. Everything is moving fast leaving, perhaps, no option to be tailored afterwards. So, the most important time is ‘Now ‘ that must have to be used and nursed applying befitting mathematics and literature Yes, a kind of blending with due care to and emphasis on economic development in a new composition is a necessity and call of time. Leaders of the countries-----despite all the internal and external constrains and limitations------ adhering to or yearn for this model, should not misuse or waste time any longer and thus come forward with courage and initiatives enough to put the train on rail.
Here we also require bearing in mind under all state of situations that no model, whatever efficacy and potentiality it is possessed of, can ever blossom in the direction of cherished goals if it falls into a trap of corruption, non-accountability, non-transparency, unbridled cronyism, extreme secularism (separation of religion both from the affairs of state and individual) and leaderships thereto either get engrossed in all these or become helpless for the reasons, political or otherwise or both. No model is free from risk of crisis arising from inequality of wealth, opportunities and privileges if it fails to take precautions against such negative escalations. Recent debacles in the form of depression or social unrest/mass upsurge in the western countries and USA in particular might be a pointer in this regard. ‘Occupy wall street’ non-violent movement in New York conveys such message more strikingly than ever before. No model is far away from the divine intervention or the blast of stagnation even if the factors, active or latent, responsible for the birth of such avalanche are not tackled or brought under control or minimized appropriately at the outset or opportune moment(attention to page 36 in the ibid at www.sinha_ounitednations.com).
To follow a model with all perfections while transforming it into practice is never possible at all. Model is a kind of reflection of ideal, vision in a wider spectrum but real is more ideal than ideal itself. An event occurred in life can never be reflected exactly in a novel, story, film or even a video is not in a position to take the whole stock of a happening. Every means of reflections is partial by nature. That’s why what happened is a reality immediately after its taking place and such reality is more ideal than ideal itself from the point of view of its depth, existence, longevity leading to lesson or warning for others. Therefore, no single stereotyped model may be effective to cope with the challenges of a state in the 21st century. Process of tailoring, accommodations and adjustments suiting a country’s requirements and compulsions are to be treated as a sort of music of development in today’s world. For such inescapable reality it is said that following a model means following it in an atmosphere of compromises and compulsions without being dogmatic and supercilious.
Failed Stares Index (FSI) based on twelve indicators, a drive by the US-based think-tank Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy Magazine, starting from 2005 to 2011, shows that it is very difficult to determine the status of a state as ‘failed state’ in the final analysis of all the indicators together because they do not work together at a time on the same volume with same velocity and dimension, although Somalia has been placed on the top in the list of alert states with a cap of failed state. On the other hand, Noam Chomsky, a US-based left think-tank, in his epoch-making book ‘Failed States: The Abuse of power and the Assault on Democracy’ identified US as one of the leading failed states in the world. Therefore, setting a model in motion is not the finality of testimony to the overall phenomena of development. It is the resultant feedback which determines in the end and it is a time for the leaders of the state in focus to be pragmatic and cautious than ever before. Otherwise, model must suffer and collapse in the long run.
For the sake of appropriate, time-befitting development in Bangladesh in her own perspective, therefore, Bangladeshi leaders shall also have to take into note realistically what priority Bangladesh---blessed enormously with potentialities, opportunities and possibilities in terms of manpower and resources--needs today as she has been grappling intensely on question of development over the decades with increasing number of population, now stands near about 160 millions, in a territory of 1, 47,570 square kilometers in south Asia. Should Bangladesh continue the prevailing nature and cadence of development? Or should the concept of economic development be the leading question of the day? Or should Bangladesh with all kinds of domestic and external constraints and limitations be more daring in adopting a model in Bangladesh perspective in true sense of the term?
No comments:
Post a Comment