Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

IT IS hardly surprising that, more than two months since the enactment of the Right to Information Act 2009 on July 1, the government is yet to form the rules under which the Information Commission is supposed to operate. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Tuesday, the government has not yet set up information delivery units in all government offices in line with the act for its enforcement. Moreover, the commission, still to get a full-fledged office, has to do with a ‘camp office’ and is hamstrung by lack of manpower and logistics. While the chief information commissioner was quoted in the report as saying that he expected ‘a full office with the required manpower and logistics for the commission soon’, it may not be quite unreasonable to suspect that his expectation might take a long while before it is fulfilled. Similarly, it may not be unreasonable either to suspect that the organogram and the rules for the commission might be finalised and approved later rather than sooner. The chief information commissioner has acknowledged as much, albeit in not so many words, in response to a July 26 query by New Age about the status of implementation of the Right to Information Act and the functioning of the commission. The delay – the foot dragging to be precise – is nonetheless unfortunate as it is undesirable.
   There is no denying that a properly functioning democracy can only exist when the people have access to the public information as regards government decision and decision-making processes, and are thus allowed to form informed opinions and able to make informed decisions. A right to information act will also undoubtedly result in greater transparency and accountability of the government. On one hand, the act can also be a major tool to unearth and fight corruption, and misuse of power, and on the other, the mere knowledge that government files can be exposed for public scrutiny will deter corruption and other irregularities. Importantly still, the act should lead to greater professionalism of the news media, as easier access to official information will greatly reduce the overdependence of the news workers on rumours and speculations.
   Regrettably, as certain provisions of the piece of legislation and also the government’s dithering over formulation of rules and organogram for the commission and equipping the commission with adequate manpower and logistics tend to suggest, the ruling quarters may not be keen to see an effective and efficient information commission at work, and the right to information act effectively enforced. The Awami League-led government needs to remind itself that it rode to power on the pledge for a change – for the better, we must add – in the way politics and governance are run. It also needs to remind itself that its top leadership has time and again promised that the government means to be transparent, and thus accountable, to the people. By expediting enforcement of the right to information act and equipping the information commission with adequate manpower and logistics so that it may discharge its responsibilities credibly and creditably, the government needs to prove its promises are not hollow and commitment to the people’s right to know is not mere rhetoric.

Tender dropping: interception
and intimidation

IN MANY flawed democracies of the developing world hijacking of ballot boxes at election time has been known. In this country, besides ballot boxes, tender boxes become unsafe after an elected government has assumed office, takes over the administration and government departments invite tenders from genuine contractors in connection with any developmental project. The submission of tenders is tampered with by resort to force and intimidation. Winning a tender will entail huge financial benefits and activists of the ruling party would go all out to get things settled their own way. This is one more manifestation of the collapsing law and order, while extortion and other kinds of coercive acts continue unabated. Normal business and security of life become problematic when coercion is the dominant culture affecting every aspect of governance. As complaints mount the party leader administers a mild reproach but no serious effort is visible to restrain the unruly elements and restore discipline in offices, in the streets, educational institutions and in society at large.
   A series of incidents took place in the past involving ruling party cadres in which submission of tenders the normal way was violently intercepted and police help had to be sought and the meddling in tender even led to a murder. In this context the Dhaka Metropolitan Police commissioner has proposed that government organisations, if necessary, can set up the tender dropping box at the nearest police station or police commissioner’s office. The police commissioner’s well-intentioned proposal does raise a few questions. Under police protection the tender box will be safer no doubt. But the basic question is why the tender box is unsafe the normal way? What message does this convey about the state of governance? The government owes an answer to the people. Secondly, the police commissioner’s proposal reflects the failure of civil administration. The civil administration is failing and may fail in future in many areas; will the police occupy those spaces in future also? Thirdly, in the case of an untoward situation created over tender dropping or anything else, the police are expected to move to the troubled spot, and not the other way round.
   We hope even if the fountain walks to the thirsty and tender boxes are to journey to the police stations, it will be a temporary measure. If it becomes permanent, it will mean adapting to lawless behaviour instead of correcting it. This extraordinary step also represents the government’s capitulation – capitulation to the lawless elements.

RECENTLY, the Asian Development Bank published its Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific of 2009. Like every year and like almost every other such publication laden with statistics that the international financial institutions bring out annually, there are a host of issues that warrant strong reservations as far as the quickest path to wholesome development and economic prosperity is concerned. For instance this year’s key indicators devote special attention to small and medium enterprises titled ‘Enterprises in Asia: Fostering Dynamism in SMEs’.
   Whether it was small and medium enterprises or large scale heavy industries that had far stronger role in brining about the rapid industrialisation of powerhouses like Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea and more recently China and India could be discussed in detail to illustrate that this stress on small and medium enterprises should be interpreted as an agenda of specific interest groups. Unduly heavy stress on this sector would eventually mean less attention for large industries which should in fact be prioritised over smaller enterprises. There could be a number of other reservations regarding this publication. But these publications also bring out certain facts in the open.
   It is not that these facts were entirely unknown, or that no one had any clue regarding the state of a certain indicator. But since there are no periodic surveys or estimates of crucial indicators like unemployment and labour, poverty and state of nutrition, people must resort to using data that are often several years old. And when trying to conduct analysis they can at best posit an educated guess about the state of the economy without updated data on certain key indicators of the economy, which makes it almost impossible to assess the situation on the ground and consequently the government’s performance.
   The latest publication of the Asian Development Bank is helpful in that aspect. And those statistics do not speak well of the state of governance in Bangladesh. The one that is of crucial interest, which was naturally among the main highlights of newspaper reports, is poverty. According to this publication, about half the people of Bangladesh live in poverty currently. It used to be 66.8 in 1992. The reason that this data does not conform to the ones that have been published before is because the benchmark for poverty has been reviewed and increased to one dollar and a quarter instead of the previous ‘dollar a day’ mark. And again, this ‘dollar’ is not the one exchanged at around Tk 70 on the market. They are called purchasing power parity dollars, which is more indicative of buying power than the monetary value of the currency.
   So according to the reviewed benchmark, half the population of Bangladesh live on less than $1.25 (PPP) per day and are therefore poor. That, however, means little in real terms and provides no idea about the nature of poverty except that this only confirms what has been projected by other research organisations including the Centre for Policy Dialogue and Unnayan Shamunnay. But this publication has the good sense to also calculate how much $1 PPP was in terms of the local currency. According to those figures, the reviewed poverty threshold means that an individual living on less than about Tk 35 per day would be considered poor. Whether that is an acceptable benchmark for poverty, and there is no reason to accept this benchmark as one that encapsulates all the different aspects of poverty, is another matter. What the numbers do indicate is that even according to simplistic and watered-down benchmarks, half the people in this country are poor.
   This also confirms a point that had been earlier made by different agencies during the reign of the interim government. It is that the country’s gains in terms income poverty reduction since 2000 came all undone during the two years of emergency when food prices increased phenomenally pushing up food inflation well beyond the double-digit mark while unemployment peaked. The proportion of people in poverty had improved to 40 per cent in 2005.
   But there is an even more damning statistic relating to the deprivation of the poor. According to the Asian Development Bank, Bangladesh had 79.5 per cent of its population living on less than Tk 51 ($2 PPP per day is considered an upper poverty line of sorts by the international agencies and organisations) per day in 1995. This proportion of population increased to 80.3 in 2005. This implies a steady worsening of disparity. According to another statistic, the poorest 20 per cent of the population accounted for a little over 9 per cent of the total consumption. When compared against the fact that the average GDP per capita in PPP terms is $1501, and percentage of population living on less the $2 PPP is 80 per cent, the radical disparity becomes somewhat clearer. The high average is, therefore, due to the radically higher income of the remaining 20 per cent.
   It is not that the state of increasing radical disparity and inequity was entirely unknown, or that the proportion of poor people was thought to be far lower than what the ADB indicators show. But these data once again point out that the system is failing the poorest. Together these data show that the path to development and economic prosperity that successive governments have pursued and perpetuated fails to improve the lot of the masses. There is no reason to accept the recommendations that the Asian Development Bank, or for that matter other international financial organisations, lenders and so-called development partners give out, should be followed. But it would undeniable that these data, once again, make a very strong case for an overhaul of the system.
   It becomes quite clear from the few indicators discussed here that successive governments have done little to genuinely improve the lot of the poorer sections. The trend of rising disparity shows that the current system fails to benefit the poor or contribute to their welfare. People who were poor ten years have by and large become poorer. Those marginally over the poverty line remain precariously perched on it with perhaps a higher vulnerability of falling below. A single bout of sickness thwarts a poor family’s possibility of graduating to the next rung for years if not an entire generation. The poorest sections still cannot afford to seek education because they are poor, but the education is not being revamped in such manner that access to it should matter on the level of poverty of the students. Lack of provision for the basic needs, together breed more poverty. It would perhaps only suffice if realignment of the country’s development path were in an equally radical direction as the existing disparity. Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric of successive governments, that seems very unlikely.