UK parliament dissects Bangladesh: Is it good news?

Whether one likes it or not, Bangladesh does not enjoy good reputation in the West. The latest debate by a British Parliamentary Committee on the "Future of Bangladesh" on June 17 may be cited in this regard. One may, however, pose the questions in the most complacent manner: "So what? Is there anything new about it? Who doesn't know Kissinger once called the country a basket case?" However, whether or not a negative perception of Bangladesh in the U.K. is good for the country in the long run is the question the country should pose to itself today. Bangladesh has already experienced the adverse effects of the World Bank's negative perception of the country, leading to its refusal to fund the Padma River Bridge project.

Since Britain donates 250 million pound sterling of its taxpayers' money to Bangladesh every year, it has every right to know if the recipient spends the money to ensure good governance, democracy, human rights, socio-economic development and political stability. Unfortunately for Bangladesh, the "debate about the future and direction of travel of Bangladesh" in the British Parliamentary Committee, was not comforting or reassuring at all.  The debate was important for Bangladesh for many reasons. It should have been an eye-opener for Bangladeshi intellectuals and politicians. Unfortunately, there has hardly been any discussion on the debate in local media. It is noteworthy that none of the British MPs from the Bangladeshi Diaspora was present at the debate, not even as a spectator.

MP Anne Main, who moved the debate on Bangladesh, asserted with no ambiguity that "as the biggest bilateral donor to Bangladesh", the UK would like to ensure that taxpayers' money was "protected from corruption" and was "spent wisely, transparently and effectively in helping Bangladesh on its journey". While she acknowledged poverty levels had fallen to under 45 percent in Bangladesh, yet – she asserted – around 77 percent of the population still lived below the poverty line (earning less than $2 per day); there was "marked income and social inequality"; and resilience to shocks could not be guaranteed.

Her report also revealed certain uncomforting facts about Bangladesh, such as: "corruption is rife", 34 percent of British aid projects in the country "are showing amber or red, giving cause for concern". She mentioned allegations of political harassment and "violence by groups that do not hold the high ideals that Mujibur Rahman expressed in 1971". She registered her concern at the "shrinking of democratic space", exploitation and avoidable accidents that occasionally kill hundreds of garment workers, and three to four shipbreakers on the beaches of Chittagong every week. She considered them as "some of the worst-employed workers in the world".

Other British lawmakers who took part in the debate also made scathing remarks about the state of governance, lack of democracy and transparency, fragile human rights situation, prevalence of child marriage and child labour in Bangladesh. Some lawmakers pointed out that 65 percent Bangladeshi girls get married before 18, and 29 percent before 15. They attributed child marriage to abject poverty in the countryside. According to MP Jim Fitzpatrick, "because of poverty the option for many families is either to find a husband for the daughter, or for someone in the family to starve. It is a difficult choice".

One lawmaker felt that Bangladesh being the eighth most populous country in the world would be in a difficult situation to cope with a population of 190 million people, of which 43 percent would be under 30. A couple of lawmakers registered their concern at the rising sea level, which they believed could be tackled only with billions of pound sterling to build 700 km long coastal defences. "If that is not done by 2050, rising sea levels could cover 17 percent of Bangladesh, displacing millions, and potentially forcing 50 million people to flee", they observed.

Several MPs deplored government inefficiency for the deaths of more than 1,200 poorly paid garment factory workers in two avoidable disasters, at Rana Plaza and Tazreen Fashions, in the recent past. MP Hugo Swire was very critical of the way the January 2014 Parliamentary Elections had been held in Bangladesh. "As we know, before a single vote was cast, just more than half of all seats were declared, meaning that 46 million out of 92 million voters were deprived of choice at the ballot box", he observed. Considering that "deeply disappointing", he was critical of Bangladeshi politicians for not promoting "much-needed confidence, mutual understanding and co-operation". He considered the last mayoral elections at Chittagong and Dhaka not credible due to "significant levels of electoral fraud and violence".

It is noteworthy that while condemning the Jamaat-e-Islami as a sister organisation of the Islamic Forum of Europe, "which has such a bad influence on our young people in the UK", MP Jim Fitzpatrick condemned the Awami League for its past association with the Jamaat.  Registering the plight of the boat people from Myanmar and Bangladesh, MP Kerry McCarthy was highly critical of the government leadership for not being proactive, and of the Prime Minister for condemning the Bangladeshi refugees as "mentally sick" people, who "should be punished, as they were tainting the image of the country".

We know Bangladesh is no longer a "basket case". Having impressive economic growth rate for the last two decades or so, the country is also ahead of India in all social indicators. The World Bank, international development agencies, and donors are more or less impressed by Bangladesh's overall progress in poverty alleviation, healthcare, child mortality, female literacy and empowerment. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has already pointed out Bangladesh to be ahead of India in all social indications, in gender equality and in the overall Human Development Index.

Then again, Bangladeshis should always remember, India being the home to most poor people in the world should never be a point of reference – let alone a role model – for Bangladesh. Bangladesh should never lose sight of the fact that in 1949 (according to a UN Report), it had a higher per capita income than that of South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia; only Japan and Singapore were ahead of what was East Bengal at that time.

Bangladeshi politicians, analysts and intellectuals have a lot to learn from the debate. British lawmakers debated issues, which are often contentious and taboos in Bangladesh. It is time for Bangladeshi intellectuals to set aside the self-praise and hyperbole produced by their Government, analysts, NGOs – including Grameen Bank and BRAC. They must understand the state of affairs in the economic, political and social spheres in the country in their true perspectives.

In sum, British lawmakers registered their concern at the deteriorating law and order situation, corruption, and natural and manmade disasters in the country. Most importantly, they did not suppress facts, and told the bitter truth, which could help Bangladesh in the long run. It is high time for Bangladeshi politicians and intellectuals to stop producing self-congratulatory reports and misleading statements to hide the state of backwardness, corruption, poverty, and unaccountable governance in the country – which are tantamount to lying. It is time to reflect on what is still going wrong with Bangladesh. This debate provided that opportunity.

The writer teaches security studies at Austin Peay State University. Sage has recently published his latest book, Global Jihad and America: The Hundred-Year War Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.