Matter-of-factness of Development

[This was published in Dhaka Courier on 30 August 2013. It is in fact an extension of the article ‘Understanding the conceptual goals of development’ published in the New Nation on 11 October 2011 and on 13 October 2013 in Dhaka Courier]

Once it is well understood that politics, political parties and leaderships aim at the wellbeing of the people does insist on pulling the rope of development to the front with all possible commitment, integrity, strength and dedication, not lagging behind pulling the rope backward then the question is what does the word development actually imply and convey in its entirety? 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 full of rhythms, intonations and symphony. If any of the chords are disturbed anyhow under any circumstances development then is also affected. 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 subject 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 canvas it includes almost 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, the 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 question 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.

Speaking in the superlative, a close stare at the countries which have in the meantime emerged as economic powers internationally or regionally or even nationally may be enough to convince oneself with feedbacks. 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 of a role 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 model-1 got maturity and strong pedigree, model-2 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 model-3.

Today, ironically enough, model-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 sharks, not dolphins or friends in the true sense).

Let us look at model-3, or Hobson’s choice. Reality unfurls the fact that this model inherently carries conflicts, contradictions and overlapping between or among areas therein paving avenues to dilemma. 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 must be there.

To suit the purposes, now there needs to be 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 decisions accordingly.

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 yearning 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 states 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.

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.

The “Occupy wall street” non-violent movement in New York conveys such a 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 some opportune moment.

To follow a model with all perfections while transforming it into practice is never possible at all. A model is a kind of reflection of an ideal, vision in a wider spectrum but reality 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 if 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 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 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’ since all the indicators do not work together, 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, in his epoch-making book “Failed States: The Abuse of power and the Assault on Democracy” identified USA as one of the leading failed states in the world. Therefore, any operational model is not the finality of index of 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, the model must suffer and collapse in the long run.

In the conclusion, I as a citizen of Bangladesh cannot but sound in a high volume that for the sake of development Bangladeshi leaders shall have to take into account realistically what Bangladesh needs today in the milieu of global landscapes on the whole. Should Bangladesh continue with the prevailing nature and cadence of development? Or should the concept of economic development as one of the carnal points of development in totality be the leading question of the day? Or should Bangladesh with all kinds of domestic and external constraints and confines be more enterprising in adopting a model from the Bangladeshi perspective and reality in the true sense of the term? Yes, under all the circumstances, showing and proving of statesmanship both by the position and opposition(s) must have to be weighed and considered as number-1 agenda and challenge. Therefore, let Sheikh Hasina, sitting Prime Minister of Bangladesh, and Begum Khaleda Zia, incumbent Leader of the Opposition, feel free to come forward and overhaul them after the spirit of statesmanship to take Bangladesh to the fold of middle income country ensuring development proper through the roads, lanes and by-lanes within the range of concerted vision and mission.