Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

ON February 4, during her question hour in the parliament, the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, affirmed her government’s intention to reconstitute the Anti-Corruption Commission, which, she claimed, was ‘used politically during the caretaker government’s rule.’ With hindsight, few will disagree with the contention that the commission’s goal of cleansing Bangladesh politics of its corrupt practitioners was politically driven. It was ‘used politically’ by targeting politicians with the purpose of preventing them from participating in the general elections. The state of emergency was imposed and maintained solely to ‘try’ these individuals in special courts, which eventually bankrupted the credibility of the commission as a corruption-buster.
   There is no doubt that the commission pursued a very clear and specific strategy of decimating the political careers of certain individuals. This was done so blatantly – by disregarding the law of the land and holding the people of this country hostage under emergency for an unprecedented period of time – that it could ‘punish’ a few individuals extra-judicially. In essence, the commission, during the reign of the caretaker government and under its auspices, created (or facilitated the creation of) an artificial depoliticised environment in order for it to operate covertly and overtly against a few pre-identified (mostly) politicians and effectively put them out of business.
   In this sense, neither the caretaker government nor the commission acted judiciously in their efforts to fight corruption, and in the process hindered (rather than helped) the prospects for curbing corruption in our country. Hence, the prime minister’s resentment about the misappropriation of the commission by the caretaker government is understandable and her decision to reconstitute the corruption-fighting body praiseworthy. However, the prime minister did not clarify how (or to what extent) her government plans to reconstitute the commission. Needless to say, a reconstitution that moves away from the caretaker government’s ‘politically used’ model, only to be replaced by one that serves partisan purposes of the Awami League-led government, will prove to be no better. In fact, it will serve a more detrimental consequence, if the government chooses to embark on that path.
   The government would be well-advised not to proceed on the route taken by the immediate-past government and instead direct its efforts to build a fully functioning, non-partisan and, therefore, effective Anti-Corruption Commission. In order to do so, the government needs to pay heed to two crucial factors, which can make or break the future of the commission.
   Firstly, it must acknowledge that the fight against corruption is a political act and is part of a larger political process that will ultimately determine its success. It must comprehend that, in the end, accountability of individuals and the commission to the people relies on how smoothly the political process is allowed to run.
   Indeed the caretaker government was not a political government, but it did enjoy the support of the majority Bangladeshis during the initial stages of its anti-corruption drive. During that time, the commission functioned politically (as in having the people’s supports), if not by choice then certainly by default. Its work became objectionable when the commission grossly misused the people’s will by applying coercive and extra-judicial means to punish the perceived guilty. Despite the absence of a political system or a political process (for example, the parliament) in the country at that time, the so-called fight against corruption had people’s backing until it turned out to be a process that seemed to be on a mission to eliminate politics (or the kind of politics they disapproved of) from the country.
   Parliament is the apex political institution of our democratic system. It is the principal forum for driving the political process that can guarantee representation of people’s aspirations (it is important to point out here that governments are not only accountable to the electorate every five years. In fact, a truly political, hence representative, government must focus on public perception and pressure in the interim period and facilitate the political process). If the government decides to make the Anti-Corruption Commission meaningfully independent, it will be a political decision. Meaning it will translate the people’s wish to put a check and balance on its decision-making process, and avail the political support necessary for fulfilling their aspirations. In order for the commission to function with neutrality, the government must let the political process work and supply its political will in ample amount where there’s public support. A functioning political process will create room for the commission to exercise meaningful independence to combat corruption.
   Secondly, in order for the commission to be deemed with credibility, it must be freed from governmental control and allowed to function as a constitutional body. The commission must be brought under the jurisdiction of the parliament and made accountable, not to the government but, to the people through the parliamentary system. More specifically, it should be made answerable to a parliamentary standing committee to which it will have to report its activities, accomplishments, plans and spending systematically. Close attention must be paid to make certain that the committee comprises members from all political parties. Similarly, the secretariat of the committee will have to perform a vigorous task of disclosing its workings to the public. The commission’s dependence on the finance ministry for its budget must also be scrapped ensuring that the administrative and financial authority lies within the commission itself. Otherwise, the rhetoric of reconstituting the commission will remain just that – rhetoric.
   It is worth mentioning here the subtle yet stark difference between combating corruption along ‘political’ and ‘partisan’ lines. We often find our political leaders apply the term ‘political’ when they actually mean ‘partisan’ (and vice versa), and use them interchangeably as if they carry the same connotation. The key is to ensure political practice – not partisanship – by incorporating public sentiments in parliamentary decision-making and invariably forming the ‘political’ process. By ensuring the ‘political’, the space needed for the commission to function neutrally is created and subsequently manifested as political will. Whereas partisanship takes place when the party or alliance in power uses the commission as its de facto arm to target or harass opponents in competing political parties. Therefore, if the government, in the name of reconstituting the Anti-Corruption Commission, works along partisan line, i.e. utilises the commission to harass and prosecute members of rival parties, it will inevitably restart the engine the prime minister has so vehemently criticised recently. The government must not forget that accountability ultimately relies on the political process, and so it must do away with the practices of previous political governments that used the commission to advance their partisan goals. The prime minister must come to realise that the existence and functioning of the commission depend on that process.
   Hopefully, the prime minister will rise above the rhetoric and set a new precedent for political thinking and practice in our country. It may be a lot to ask of the newly formed government, especially correcting the decades-old political system revolving around partisanship and mistrust. But we must not forget if we are to reap the fruits of a practising democracy, the political process must work. For this, the government must act judiciously, and certainly politically, if it wishes to reconstitute the Anti-Corruption Commission in a meaningful manner. Nowhere is this political will more needed than in our fight against corruption.
   Tamina M Chowdhury is a research associate/lecturer at the Institute of Governance Studies, BRAC University.

The recently concluded World Social Forum [held at Belem, Brazil from January 27 to February 1] is a good gauge for assessing the state of the world’s alternative social, economic and political movements. Organised in 2001 as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of global and corporate elites held in Davos, Switzerland, the WSF brings social movement organisations and activists from around the world together around the idea that ‘another world is possible.’ If Davos represents a failed globalisation from above, the WSF represents an emerging globalisation from below. It’s a massive affair—this year more than 100,000 people gathered here for the five-day event. Part political convention, part carnival, part countercultural happening, the WSF serves as the centre of gravity for the global justice movement that emerged in the late 1990s to contest corporate globalisation.
   The question on the minds of many was how to respond to what some call the ‘crisis of crises’—the economic, climate, political and cultural catastrophes that have engulfed the planet—and whether social movements can provide a unifying alternative vision for a better world. Economist Walden Bello of Focus on the Global South summed it up: ‘There is a sense of urgency and seriousness combining both pragmatism and principle. There is much less rhetoric. Things are taking place very fast outstripping what many predicted. There is a clear collapse of neo-liberalism. We have been triumphant over Davos.... Now we need alternatives and must get down to the hard work of creating them.’
   Hard economic times and the remoteness of the location skewed the turnout this year—the vast majority of the participants were from Brazil and Latin America—but there were still healthy contingents from every continent. While most of the 5,808 participating organisations were from Latin America, about 1,600 were drawn from the rest of the world, including 491 from Europe, 489 from Africa, 334 from Asia and 155 from North America. In addition to the rank-and-file participants, the presidents of Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay also made appearances.
   The global economic meltdown made the Belém forum different from previous ones. The WSF and the global justice movement were formed in the expansive phase of globalisation; now they must adapt to global economic contraction and impending environmental disaster. This year’s participants know that they were right about the failure of corporate-led globalisation, but they also know that just saying no is no longer adequate. The prospects of a global wave of beggar-thy-neighbour currency devaluations and destructive trade policies in response to the crisis and the revival of virulent nationalism loomed over the discussions. Many wondered if what was once dubbed the ‘anti-globalisation movement’ could produce a global response based on global solidarity.
   
   Impacts of the global crisis
   There was general agreement that the economic meltdown is spilling over national borders, but it is unfolding at a different pace and in varied ways across the world.
   Gautam Mody, of India’s New Trade Union Initiative, told The Nation that ‘given the sheer number of irregular workers, most on contract, in India the crisis is as yet invisible...but millions of these workers have been pushed off the shop floor.’ These layoffs go largely unrecorded and workers receive no benefits. And Kjeld Jacobsen, of the Social Observatory in Sao Paulo, said that despite obvious signs that the crisis will rival that of the 1930s, ‘it’s still hard to convince some workers of the severity of the coming crisis because it is just beginning.’
   In continental Europe, the crisis is still dubbed the ‘financial crisis,’ an indication that it is not yet being felt in the so-called ‘real economy’ of everyday life. Bruno Ciccaglione, an Italian trade unionist, told us that ‘in the US the crisis helped to delegitimise the political class and particularly the Bush administration. But in Europe many of the governments that were very weak before the crisis—like Sarkozy in France, Brown in the UK and to some extent Berlusconi in Italy—came out stronger as a result of their economic packages and solutions, so the delegitimisation of the political class for the moment has not occurred. But it will as the crisis moves into the real economy.’ The current strikes in France in response to large-scale layoffs are an indication that things are changing fast in Europe, he added.
   There is also widespread worry in Europe over a possible right-wing backlash. Norwegian political activist Asbjorn Wahl explained why: ‘We have strong right-wing parties in many European countries, including my own country where they get almost 35 per cent of the vote—and about that much of the working-class vote. If we don’t come up with good alternatives that address people’s needs, we may see that grow. It’s a race between the right and the left, and at the moment, and for the last ten years, the right is gaining more. We have a history of the right taking over during a crisis in Europe.’
   
   Networks of networks
   The World Social Forum has played an essential role in the ‘post-Seattle’ world (a reference to the 1999 confrontation between anti-globalisation activists and the World Trade Association) by serving as a centre of gravity for a movement comprised of a diverse array of organisations, each with its own issues, agendas, programmes and constituencies and with a global geographic spread. The WSF has been an incubator for the creation of many successful advocacy networks focused on specific issues related to labour, trade, finance, migration, the environment, human rights, poverty and alternative economic organisations. But there has been limited interaction among these networks. The networks remained ‘trapped in their own silos,’ in the words of one forum speaker.
   That changed this year. A major push for ‘cross-network convergence’—creating networks of networks—dominated much of the discussion, and could mark a new stage in the global justice movement’s development. French activist Ameile Cannone, of the Seattle to Brussels Network, described it this way: ‘The context is different; we face a global crisis, people have decided to put that at the centre of their activities. It’s a real opportunity to work across networks, a great first step to start working on climate, labour and development issues. I don’t think it would have been possible before and for us this is really a good step.’
   
   G-20 and Copenhagen
   Amid the usual anti-capitalist boilerplate, the closing statement of the Bel& eacute;m Forum, says: ‘The challenge for the social movements is to achieve a convergence of global mobilisation. It is also to strengthen our ability to act by supporting the convergence of all movements striving to withstand oppression and exploitation.’
   Two upcoming events will test this new commitment to ‘convergence:’ the G-20 Economic Summit, to be held in London at the end of March, and the climate treaty talks, to be held in Copenhagen in December. There is a general sense that these events offer a crucial opportunity for popular movements to mobilise and make their voices heard.
   As for the future of the World Social Forum, it remains a flawed but essential institution of global civil society. Critics believe it has become too big and unruly—a carnival rather than a political gathering. It is not a setting for serious policy debates. And there has always been tension between those who would push the forum to be more of a social actor and those that want the forum to remain an ‘open space’ for building relationships and sharing ideas. On her way home, Haeyoung Yoon, of the New York-based CAAAV Organising Asian Communities as well as the Grassroots Global Justice Network, reflected on this tension: ‘The Social Forum has to be different. It should be an open space, but a partisan open space.’ Finding that balance in a time of crisis will be difficult.
   The Nation/New York, February 13, 2009. The article has been abridged.

Anandabazaar Patrika comment

The foreign minister was right when she made no reply to the insolent question by a reporter of Anandabazaar Patrika, a newspaper noted for its communal stance.
   AA
   Via e-mail

---