| EKUSHEY SPECIAL |
|
Denying freedom, denying development
by Tanim Ahmed
 The general expectation was that life would regain ‘normalcy’ under the state of emergency; that it would provide relief from the suffocating string of blockades and general strikes as a result of the confrontational nature of politics between the two main political camps. These confrontations gradually turned from minor skirmishes into pitched battles in Dhaka and other cities as all activities of business and commerce were brought to a standstill. Soon after taking office, the chief adviser to the military-controlled interim government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, on January 21 stated his government’s commitment to controlling the prices of essential commodities and fighting corruption, among a rather long to-do list, in his very first address to the nation. He also called for an end to disparity, speaking at the inauguration of the month-long book fair, the Ekushey Boi Mela, on February 1, 2007. The army chief, General Moeen U Ahmed, during his much analysed, much discussed and much controversial speech of April 2, 2007 at a conference of political scientists recognised that one had to strive to overcome economic inequalities. He had begun his speech by saying that the path to freedom and development was not an easy one. He said that poor governance of the political governments had thwarted economic growth, and had it not been for this pathetic state of affairs, income per capita would have broken the $1,000 barrier, if not at least reaching double the current level of a lowly $482. He claimed that the $1,000 mark was still attainable through reforms being initiated by the interim government. The implicit suggestion that may be gathered from the speeches of the key figures of this interim government was that the people would enjoy better economic rights in exchange for curtailment of their civil and political rights by dint of the emergency rules. In the context of Bangladesh, as defined by the constitution by way of fundamental principles of the state, it meant that the interim government would ensure people’s right to the basic necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care, the right to guaranteed gainful employment, right to reasonable rest, recreation and leisure and the right to social security. But their rights to freedom of speech, thoughts and conscience, movement, association, assembly, occupation and property would remain suspended. The proposition that the masses are more interested in their living standard than their rights appears acceptable on the surface but remains debated. In fact, Nobel laureate economist, Amartya Sen, challenges this notion by pointing at empirical evidence. If anything, Sen states in ‘Development as Freedom’, whenever they have been given voice, the poor have expressed similar interest in achieving basic freedoms as eliminating poverty. Consciously or not, both Fakhruddin and Moeen appear to prioritise economic rights as an excuse to further an authoritarian regime that substantially curtails fundamental rights. Sen demonstrates that there is no real support for the claim that suppression of freedoms yields significant benefits in terms of economic performance. In fact, he shows that the opposite is true. He shows that countries with authoritarian governments are the only nations to have suffered famines. At the other end of the spectrum, states with effective democratic institutions have historically had better economic performance. Indeed, since promulgation of emergency people have seen their legitimate demands — hinging on their basic economic rights — for a gainful employment, means to livelihood, wages or even food and other basic necessities thwarted by the incumbents. In order for them to push for these demands, the deprived masses, quite similar to their action during the tenure of previous elected partisan governments, took to the streets and demonstrated. Garment workers have had to take to the streets demanding wages, regular overtime payment and increasing their meagre allowances a number of times. Farmers have taken to the streets, sometimes laying siege to government offices or highways demanding smooth distribution of fertiliser. Jute mill workers have demonstrated to demand payment of wages that were in some cases pending for over four or five months. Even victims of cyclone Sidr have taken to the streets demanding the proper distribution of relief and a stop to irregularities in the distribution of relief goods. However, each of these groups has had to face harsh reprisals that were not merely limited to the brute force of the authorities on the streets but have included the filing of cases, undue harassment, arrests and detention for admitted violation of emergency rules. If anything, since the promulgation of emergency, economic security of the people has only waned and withered not just for the poorer sections but for even those belonging to the middle class. The constantly rising prices and galloping inflation, shutdown of state owned enterprises, eviction of hawkers, demolition of slums and low government expenditure have impinged on the people’s constitutional rights to their livelihoods, shelters, wages and food. The claim that the reforms of the interim government would see per capita wages rise above the thousand dollar mark rings hollow. Although it might come as a surprise that such frustrating trends should define the tenure of an authoritarian regime—one that has been ruling the country for over a year on pledges of justice, equity and the rule of law — scholastic literature suggests that authoritarian governments are the only ones to have witnessed such human disasters as famines. According to Sen, noted for his work on famines, no country with multiparty democracy and a free press has ever had a famine simply because the government were compelled to act responsibly to avert the human disaster faced by media scrutiny and in order to secure victory in the next elections. While governments, even the most benevolent and democratic ones, find it easy and convenient to grant political and civil rights, they find it rather difficult to ensure the economic rights of the people. This is because in order to ensure political and civil rights, governments merely have to refrain from acting in an authoritarian manner and these rights are duly restored virtually for ‘free’. But the economic rights of the people are quite different as their realisation requires significant efforts and the proper mobilisation of substantial resources. As such, even the most basic economic rights — such as right to a decent living standard through elimination of extreme poverty — is considered more of a social obligation and not quite one stipulated by law. Although economic rights are part of Bangladesh’s constitution, an individual’s right to life or property are considered far more grievous infringements of rights while one’s right to gainful employment or shelter hardly warrants similar attention. In fact the state itself, instead of ensuring gradual restoration of the economic rights, has demolished slums and evicted hawkers, directly violating the principles of economic rights. Till now, political and civil rights have received far more attention globally and nationally than have economic rights, which remain not as well articulated and less implemented through public policy. That is perhaps why there needs to be such global compacts as the Millennium Development Goals. It remains a matter of fact that although economic rights are recognised by most democratic states, governments are at pains to have those rights duly realised. The pain is not merely because it requires serious and relentless effort on the part of governments. Furthermore, these efforts necessarily include measures that attempt to put in place progressive tax policies and better and more equitable distribution of wealth and corresponding allocation of government resources. These efforts are typically either discouraged by the more affluent sections of society since genuine and realistic redistribution of wealth would only see theirs diminished. The task to secure the economic rights of the people beginning with their right to a decent standard of living is, therefore, a steep uphill climb. It would on the one hand require sincere political will of the government but more importantly the people must persist with their legitimate demands for these rights with raised voices and a sustained campaign. Such a campaign requires a gradually heightening level of political awareness among the people that will eventually culminate in spurring the masses into action, be it through raising their voices, taking to the streets or agitation. But a regime that actively seeks to thwart one’s right to speech, thoughts and conscience, movement, association, or assembly, is actually striving to thwart the heightening level of awareness. It is that conviction among the people — that the government must act to alleviate their endemic poverty — that an authoritarian regime such as the current one opposes and thereby denies emancipation of the repressed masses. Because economic rights are entrenched with political and civil rights, suspension of the latter would eventually mean deterioration of the former. Tanim Ahmed is assistant editor, New Age |
Ekushey and the state of undemocracy
FOUNDER EDITOR ENAYETULLAH KHAN; ACTING EDITOR NURUL KABIR
Copyright © New Age 2005
Mailing address Holiday Building, 30, Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208, Bangladesh.
Phone 880-2-8114145, 8118567, 8113297
Fax 880-2-8112247
Email
newage@bangla.net
Web Designer Zahirul Islam Mamoon