Why nations (Bangladesh) fail
Hasina emerged as “Asia’s Iron Lady” and enjoyed unbridled powers for which even a mediaeval king would be jealous
Why does Bangladesh always perform poorly and in some cases miserably fail to obtain a global average score on corruption, bribery, rule of law and freedom of the press indices regularly released by global watchdogs that monitor the extent of civil and political rights enjoyed by people in countries, both democratic and autocratic across the world?
Do they intentionally put Bangladesh at the bottom, to be precise just ahead of war ravaged Afghanistan among South Asian countries, out of their jealousy for Bangladesh's ''spectacular economic growth'' in the last 15 years under the Sheikh Hasina regime? Or do they have malice towards Bangladesh– a country that had once been hyped by some economists as an "economic miracle" and "paradox of development"?
Governance was the answer
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The answers simply lie in the governance system of Bangladesh which prevailed during the regime of Hasina, who emerged as a despot and was forced to resign and flee the country for India on 5 August in an extraordinary students' uprising.
Take a quick revisit of her iron-fisted regime which saw an unprecedented swift to downfall even after the formation o1f a new government just seven months ago by holding a third consecutive stage managed election.
Theoretically, the ousted prime minister Hasina was, as political scientists regard in many ways, the premier of a Westminster form of parliamentary democracy as "first among the equals"; "moon among the stars"; "the pivot of the whole system of government"; "the sun around which the planets revolve."
But in reality none of the terms matched with Hasina who emerged as "Asia's Iron Lady" and enjoyed unbridled powers for which even a mediaeval king would be jealous. She ruled the laws instead of enforcing the rule of law for the last 15 years. She had become too powerful to be called to account by any formal political institution, including the parliament, as all of them except for her absolute powerful office known as PMO were limping.
She was never under the control of parliament. Rather the parliament, the judiciary, and all the other key institutions were put under her thumb through deep politicisation thereby clipping their wings which would otherwise scrutinise the actions, policies and laws made by her government. The law enforcement agencies were always kept ready to crush the opposition parties and dissenting voices. Freedom of the press was muzzled in many ways including the blatant abuse of draconian cyber laws against journalists.
Operation under a shadow
Always operating under a shadow of illegitimacy because of her penchant for clinging to power without holding free and fair elections, Hasina emerged with her biggest trump card— "development" to overwrite democracy. She and her associates took it upon themselves to harp on the same string every time they got a chance to speak anywhere.
However, her "development narrative" had been weakened by a number of fault lines much before her humiliating downfall on 5 August.
The reasons for her collapse were painfully obvious. Her 15-year-long regime was marked by widespread brutalities, grand corruption, blatant abuse of the legal system, extrajudicial killings and more, resulting in transformation of the country into a "mega Kleptocracy"-- a system run by thieves.
After her, the deluge
Brutalities and the grand scale of corruption during her regime came into limelight as the textbook example of her despotic regime after her ouster. All the key political and economic institutions such as the parliament, the judiciary, the police and the bureaucracy, which were micromanaged as tools to serve her regime, collapsed like a house of cards, leaving Bangladesh with an institutional wreckage.
That Hasina's system was not functioning as a modern citizen-friendly state, has been pointed out time and again by global watch dogs.
But every time their warnings have been trashed and buried by the Hasina regime under her "development narrative."
Take the last example.
On the last corruption index released by Transparency International in January, three weeks after Hasina formed her government by winning another stage managed election, Bangladesh scored lower than in 2008. Among the eight South Asian countries, Bangladesh remained the second-last, only above Afghanistan, in score and rank with a measly score of 24 out of 100 on the latest index.
The same day then road transport and bridges minister Obaidul Quader said the government did not care about the TI report saying, "TI is BNP's agent and it says whatever the BNP says."
"This type of agency [TI] has some political interest. These agencies protect the interests of some groups or some countries," he told a press conference at the Awami League president's Dhanmondi political office.
She had become too powerful to be called to account by any formal political institution including the parliament
Vaporware of 'development'
The development narrative Hasina and her associates built were based on the mega projects for construction of mega infrastructures which were always marred by allegations of mega scale corruptions. The quality of the governance under her regime was always on the decline.
Despite doing all the nefarious things, can Bangladesh perform better on global rankings? No.
The Rule of Law Index of the World Justice Project unveils the reality on the ground in Bangladesh. The country that scored 0.42 out of 1 in 2015 (scores range from 0 to 1 and ranked 93 of 102 countries on the index) saw a nosedive in the latest index released in October last year where Bangladesh ranked 127th out of 142 countries with a score of 0.38. Bangladesh, along with Pakistan and Afghanistan, scored lowest in the region. The sorry state indicates rule of law was sent in exile.
The 2023 Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency, Bangladesh scored 24. Bangladesh ranked 149th among 180 countries and territories around the world.
What about the presence of a semblance of democracy in Bangladesh?
'Hybrid regime'
In 2008, the Economist Intelligence Unit recognised Bangladesh as a 'hybrid regime' where democracy and authoritarianism converge.
The EIU judged the countries on various indicators like electoral process and pluralism in politics, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.
The status remains unchanged since 2008.
Interestingly, its last index released in February, right after the January election, drew criticism from academics and political analysts in Bangladesh for recognising Bangladesh again as "hybrid regime" though placing the country two notches down from the previous year.
Bangladesh is under an authoritarian regime, according to academics and analysts, where democracy does not exist and state institutions are dysfunctional, said a New Age report on 17 February.
The non-government think tank Centre for Governance Studies chairman Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury said that the country had no democracy as all the state institutions, like the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive organisations, were made dysfunctional, according to a New Age report.
"I do not agree that the country has a hybrid democracy. The country had now turned into an authoritarian state," he said, referring to the January 7 general elections. "If the situation continues, it will turn into a totalitarian state like North Korea in the days to come," he had said to the New Age.
Had Afghanistan not been a country of South Asia, Bangladesh could be the worst scorer among neighbours finding its place at the bottom of some global key rankings on corruption, press freedom, bribery and rule of law indices released by non-profit global watchdogs. [see the infographics]
Finding place at the bottom of those key indicators tells a tale of the miserable failure of the state building through construction of vital pillars such as the legislative, the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the local government, the law enforcement agencies and more.
The decades-long war ravaged Afghanistan, now under control of Taliban again since 2021, is preventing Bangladesh from becoming champion among neighbours on the crucial indices related to the country's governance.
Ranking above Afghanistan on indices of corruption, press freedom, bribery and rule of law is nothing but disgraceful for Bangladesh that deserves better.
The history of Afghanistan and Bangladesh is not the same, except for one thing in common which is that both countries miserably failed to build key political and economic institutions on which a state keeps growing its muscle to be evolved as a state to protect and serve its citizens.
Afghanistan however is ahead of Bangladesh on the climate index as it is less polluted than the latter. Many rivers were murdered either by grabbing or polluting them. Forests were razed by grabbing lands. This is the other side of the Hasina regime's development.
Bragging
The leaders of the Hasina regime were always bragging loudly about becoming a high income country by 2031 and a developed economy by 2041. But they were so obsessed with their 'development narrative' that they became blind to the fact that any growth would be short lived if key institutions of the state were not nurtured. There are numerous textbook examples of such short-lived growth. They have learnt nothing even though they frequently travelled to many democratic and developed countries.
Even they did not notice how two other tiny neighbours—Nepal and Bhutan—are constructing political and economic institutions as part of the state building after the collapse of their monarchies.
Both the countries have started fresh journeys in recent years through massive restructuring of power such as devolution of the executive power, efforts to strengthen institutions and promotion of transparency, ensuring independence of the judiciary, trying to tackle corruption, encouraging merit-based appointments in civil service among more.
Their efforts paid off. They have become leaders among South Asian countries with Nepal ranking top on press freedom and rule of law and Bhutan on corruption and bribery indices.
Countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland that remain among top ten performers on all major indices offer lessons for state building by construction of institutions.
Why Afghanistan failed
Why did state-building efforts in Afghanistan fail?
The answer lies in the bureaucratic legacies the country inherited from the Soviet era. The Soviet influence helped build a highly centralised executive power system and a legacy of dysfunctional institutions. These patterns were shaped by the influx of Soviet aid beginning in the 1950s, according to analysts.
Afghanistan's domestic institutions remained static even after the 2001 US-led intervention, said Jennifer Brick Mutrazashvili, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Public and International Affairs in a seminar series talks organised by Stanford University in December 2023.
"Instead of restructuring these institutions after 2001, the international community worked to preserve their centralized features, fearing that decentralization could empower local warlords," she observed.
This approach aligned with the interest of national leaders who saw centralisation as key to their hold on power and control over state resources, said Mutrazashvili, who carried out field work in Afghanistan and engaged with relevant stakeholders on the ground.
Before Taliban retaking Afghanistan in 2021, presidential elections were held and a nominally democratic process was put in place.
But there were no major policy shifts. The power remained centralised by the executive without any meaningful devolution of authority to subnational structures, notwithstanding the persistence of informal governance bodies at the local level in some parts of the country, observed Mutrazashvili.
Therefore, Afghanistan collapsed in August 2021 once again. The 20-year long effort since 2001 of state building was doomed by the country plunging again in chaos and conflicts.
The reasons behind Afghanistan's failure match with causes for the failure of countries including Bangladesh and Pakistan—such countries produce an institutional structure that is highly unlikely to serve the people and meet demands of the time. Institutional wreckage remained unrepaired by successive regimes and some even continued to exploit the system to the fullest.
Economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in the book "Why Nations Fail" argue nations fail due to a combination of factors such as the nature of their state institutions and the failure of leadership. They argue some nations are wealthier and more prosperous than others because of their political and economic institutions.
So, there is no alternative to building state institutions. The fact was denied by Hasina to build her authoritarian regime trampling all political and economic institutions of Bangladesh. Her regime collapsed, sustainability of the growth became uncertain due to brutal destruction of the institutions. However the downfall of the Hasina regime marks a new era of Bangladesh.
