Column by Mahfuz Anam: ‘Decision games’ that we play with our people

If the section of the government dealing with the overall management of the Covid situation continuously flip-flops on its decisions, then doesn't the image of the government suffer? If what is announced one day is changed on the next, doesn't it lead to people losing confidence in government decisions? When a course of action is decided upon without any implementation plan, then doesn't it erode the credibility of the government? Can the government expect full compliance when decisions are taken without any thoughts given to their impact on the people?

On July 13, the cabinet division in a gazette notification (one cannot get more official than that) announced that "strict lockdown" would be imposed from July 23 to August 5, extending the work stoppage from Eid leave. The home minister on July 27 added that the government had turned down pleas from the business community, including garment factory owners, for keeping factories open during lockdown. Then on Friday, July 30, to everybody's surprise, the same cabinet division announced that all export oriented industries will be out of the purview of the lockdown from next Sunday, giving practically little more than a day for the workers to join their factories on the pain of losing their jobs or being financially punished for late appearance.

Whether or not it was correct to open the factories in the midst of the lockdown or how it will impact the spread of the highly infectious Delta variant is not what we are asking at the moment. Our focus is, in deciding to open the factories on such short notice, how much attention was given to the convenience of the workers and whether it was at all practical for the government to expect RMG workers to report for work, especially when all means of transport was closed, again, by the order of the government.

The decision forced thousands of workers, mostly female, to undergo untold sufferings to travel to Dhaka, Gazipur and Narayanganj, where most of their factories are located, to join work.

After a full day of chaotic, hazardous, life-risking and Covid-spreading travelling, on Saturday (July 31) at 8pm, the authorities, perhaps realising the injudiciousness of giving such a short notice, ended up doing something more foolish. They decided to re-open public transport for 16 hours to "facilitate" workers joining their work.

Opening public transport for 16 hours? Was the practicability of such an order at all thought of? Was it the view that all the bus drivers, ready with tanks full of fuel, were waiting beside their respective vehicles to start operating from the word go? Was it the assumption that all passengers were lined to board their respective buses at the designated stations to start their journey? Many drivers came to know of the decision when the 16 hours deadline was over. Only a handful of buses operated and that too in a very limited area. The railways, used by a large number of garment workers living in various parts of the country, did not even try to open.

In the meantime, RMG workers and others of export-oriented industries, were seen using rickshaw, vans, private trucks, microbuses and CNGs to join their factories, paying hefty fare for the journey. Sadly, thousands could be seen walking for miles with their meagre luggage on their heads to comply with the factory-opening decision. Did we need, or have the right, to subject our citizens to such turmoil?

On Tuesday before last (August 3), an inter-ministerial meeting was held to assess the lockdown situation and finalise the vaccine rollout plan. It was attended, in-person or virtually, by 12 ministers and state ministers, the PM's principal secretary, cabinet secretary, 16 secretaries of different ministries, chiefs of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The purpose was to spell out the details of the massive rollout plan aiming at vaccinating roughly 1 crore people.

What followed after the meeting was quite unbelievable.

As ministerial meetings go, it was of a very high level. It lasted for over three hours, at the end of which a joint press briefing was held by the Minister for Liberation War Affairs, AKM Mozammel Haque, who presided over the meeting, along with the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Zahid Maleque. In his 30 minutes briefing, among other things, he said that after the lifting of the lockdown, "anyone above 18 years will not be allowed on the streets or on any mode of transport unless they were vaccinated." How will this decision be implemented? Who will do the checking both about the age and about being vaccinated? Didn't the enormity of the logistics strike the minister's mind before speaking to the press?

The absurdity, the impracticality and the unimplementability of what he was saying obviously did not bother him. Nor did it seem to have struck the health minister, who sitting next to him, who in his briefing, neither contradicted nor clarified what the presiding minister said. He could have at least pointed out that 18-year-olds were not given any vaccine as yet.

So the news was carried by the media and the expected wave of criticism on social media inevitably followed. Around midnight the same day, there was a TV scroll notice from the health ministry distancing itself from minister Mozammel's statement. This was followed by a press release at mid-day next. An hour later, the presiding minister withdrew his statement.

Why was such a farce made of a press briefing? What is the protocol of press briefings, especially after official high-level meetings? Didn't the two ministers feel any need for an exchange of points or thoughts before going before the press? Why was it taken so lightly? Given the subject, the main briefing should have come from the health minister and not from the minister in charge of Liberation War Affairs just because he presided over the meeting.

As of last Wednesday, all forms of restrictions have been lifted, except for tourism, political and religious gatherings, etc. In deciding to lift practically all restrictions on transport, public movement, factories, offices, restaurants, etc., it is clear that our decision-makers have concluded that we have either won our fight against the pandemic or that we are on the verge of it.

Needless to say, the decision has baffled experts, especially when the infection rate is nowhere near the prescribed level given by WHO, and when the Covid situation is far from under control.

The livelihood argument overwhelmed the government, as the captains of the industry are known to have irrepressible clout over our decision-makers. Having imposed lockdown from April onwards—a necessary move but frustrated by various concessions given to industry lobbies—the government had to respond to the dire consequences that those on the bottom rung of the society were suffering from, especially when its assistance was not reaching that segment of the population that needed it the most. Thus, the logic of re-opening the economy, howsoever dangerous, became almost inevitable.

While experts will continue to debate as to the judiciousness of lifting the lockdown, once again, as before, we want to focus on how implementable and well-thought-out the decisions were, whether adequate time was given to the government machinery down the line to implement them, and whether any thought was given on how those decisions were likely to impact the citizens?

While lifting all restrictions on transportation, the government directed that only half the fleet of buses will be allowed to ply on the roads with 100 percent capacity. How and who will ensure that only half of each owner's fleet of buses will be allowed to operate? How will the owners who have only one bus implement this decision? What happens to social distancing when buses are allowed to take their full load? The chaos that followed—and the sufferings that people had to go through—speaks for itself.

The importance of the government as a functioning institution cannot be overemphasised. It is at the epicentre of literally everything. All policies, planning, directives, projects, future ideas, and much more emanate from it. A huge amount of taxpayers' money is spent to nurture and facilitate the advancement of our government employees. The credibility of this institution is an important element of effective implementation of all its policies and plans.

The three instances we cited above speak of unthinking policymaking, unprepared decision-making, and an uncaring attitude towards the people that they are paid to serve. This must stop if we are to effectively defeat the pandemic and emerge on top.

We cannot continue to have such confusion and chaos in the decision-making and implementing processes within the government.

Mahfuz Anam is Editor and Publisher, The Daily Star.