Column by Mahfuz Anam: A self-defeating obsession with ‘image’

At 50, it's time we acted in a manner that reflects a confident country, not one that is nervous and insecure fearing that the slightest criticism will cause us harm. It's time we became a nation that is fully aware of its potential, certain of its abilities, conscious of its strengths, and hence allows openness, freedom of expression and an unfettered play of creativity that—as history proved over and over again—lie at the core of a people's real and sustainable advancement. It's time we came out of our occasional infantilism. It's also time we did away with the laws that enchain people, intimidate them, curb their freedom of speech, inhibit their urge to dream and prevent our youth from participating in building a future which, by definition, is theirs.

The 50th anniversary of our birth must be as much a moment to tell the world about our significant achievements as a time for inner reflection, admission of mistakes, and adoption of corrective measures that will guarantee an enduring future in freedom and prosperity.

Though we are turning 50 as a country, our obsession with "image", however, does not appear to be ebbing. People in vital positions seem to talk about it as if it is the be-all-and-end-all of all things about our country. We are perhaps the only country in the world—unless we want to side with the authoritarian ones whose protestations in favour of democracy are most vigorous—that has a law to protect its "image". We don't seem to understand that image is a reflection of reality. If we change the reality, the image changes by itself. However, if we try to improve the image without changing the fundamentals, it will not work. It is as if we are advocating for applying make-up to look good rather than improving one's health with a nutritious diet.

The irony of it is that Bangladesh is the best example of the above statement—and our leaders do not seem to realise it.

For the first 25 years of our 50-year existence, we cried ourselves hoarse about how the world was unfairly depicting us, while we killed the Father of the Nation, had one coup after another, saw frequent uprising in the armed forces, poor governance and the general health of the economy being either poor or showing only very limited signs of improvement. Our reality was devastating, and yet we wanted the world to sing our praise.

However, in the last 25 years, starting with the restoration of democracy in December 1990, our growth momentum changed, GDP continued to rise in spite of global trends to the contrary, and social indicators began to tell a positive story. The child mortality rate declined, and the general nutrition level rose, as did our literacy rate and average life expectancy. We fulfilled the MDG goals and are now well ahead of many countries in meeting the SDG goals. Our recent graduation from the LDC country status into a developing one forcefully tells the story of our determination to fulfil the pledges of our freedom struggle.

As all this happened, our image changed automatically. No law, no cajoling, no ingratiating, nothing was required. Only deeds. Suddenly, the world saw the potential that we presented and started to count on us as an exemplary member of the international community, serving as a role model for how a country with tremendous odds can struggle out of constraints. Our actions spoke louder than words, our performance belied the critics, and no laws were needed to protect our image. It stood on its own. The March 10 article in the NYT by Nicholas Kristof—titled "What Can Biden's Plan Do for Poverty? Look to Bangladesh"—is but the latest example of what we are saying. The article is particularly satisfying as it suggests that the US should learn from Bangladesh in fighting poverty, a befitting rebuttal to Henry Kissinger's "Basket Case" remark 47 years ago.

So, how did this transformation of our image at the global stage come about? Was it the work of some PR agency or some lobbyist making the rounds of important offices or persons? Most recently, our prime minister was honoured to be among the three most successful women leaders in the Commonwealth for demonstrating extraordinary leadership during the Covid-19 pandemic. Wasn't this recognition based on her work? Wasn't her success due to her guiding Bangladesh through this global crisis, and especially for her far-sighted and timely action in procuring sufficient supplies of vaccine when so many countries—including many EU members—are still in a desperate search for theirs?

So when all the evidence proves that images reflect reality and that negative images change into positive ones when we work hard to improve that reality, then why, in God's name, are we jailing people for pointing out flaws in our system? A reckless spree of arrests, detention, torture and defamation cases have been set in motion ever since the enactment of the Digital Security Act (DSA). This single act did more harm to the image of the country than the so-called "enemies" could have done.

Let's take the last few years as an example of how unwise legislation and their unthinking implementation have clouded what would otherwise have been a powerful positive narrative. As we continued to get accolades from the UN, WB, ADB, global ranking institutions and the international media, as our people and our PM continued to be honoured by different global and regional bodies, we did very little to stop the instances of forced disappearances, custodial deaths, cross-fire killings, arbitrary arrests, torture in custody, invasion of homes without warrant, plainclothes people claiming to be law enforcers and picking up people, extortion, opposition activists being beaten up by police, people being in jails for months, if not years, without trial and sometimes without even being charged, and not to mention the corruption, money laundering and trafficking of women. What then is really "tarnishing" our image, and who are responsible for this?

Recently, we have been hearing from some very unexpected quarters about the importance of the "country's image", terming it as the first priority. We thought protecting the country's sovereignty and independence had that place of honour. Where do priorities like protecting the constitution, upholding the rule of law, ensuring freedom and rights of the people and equality before the law, etc. find their place if protecting the country's image takes precedence above everything else?

Recently, during his last press conference, the departing chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) reportedly said that he had refrained from taking any decision when he thought it "might tarnish the image of the country". Honestly, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. The ACC's mandate is to fight corruption. As its chair, he was supposed to lead that fight. Where in his mandate—or the rules and the law that established the ACC—is the country's image mentioned as a factor for his activities?

Are we to understand that he refrained from carrying out his duties because doing so would "tarnish" the country's image? Has unearthing corruption ever "tarnished" the image of any country anywhere at any time in history? In fact, the very opposite is true. What a pathetic excuse for inaction.

Imagine if our heads of statutory bodies, secretaries of ministries, the police chief, chiefs of intelligence agencies, heads of departments in ministries all started to decide what to do and what NOT to do on the basis of their personal thoughts on what and what would not hurt our image. Imagine our auditor and comptroller general deciding not to reveal the anomalies he unearths because of the "image" factor. The whole edifice of governance would collapse if such a thought process was to receive widespread currency.

As we stated at the beginning, the obsession with image is self-defeating. It is so because the more you want it, the less it comes your way, and conversely, the less you care about it, the more you get it. This is truer for countries than for individuals. The more a country seeks good publicity and good image, the more it sounds like propaganda and the more its value corrodes due to lack of credibility. The image of a country depends more on what values it actually represents. Of course, the infrastructure, the economy, the glittering cities, the skyscrapers and fast trains have their value, but ultimately, it is how inclusive, open, participatory and dissent-tolerant a country is that determines its true maturity.

Suddenly, New Zealand has become the world's favourite country simply because of the sensitivity, openness, tolerance and deep empathy with which it handled the terrorist crisis generated by a white supremacist. The policy leadership of Jacinda Arden, which was accepted and welcomed by the majority of New Zealanders, has transformed that little-known corner of the world into a democracy's showpiece. Markel's Germany gained global admiration when it took in a million Syrian refugees. Bangladesh itself, and its leader Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, earned much global respect because of the way we welcomed and have been housing the 1.1 million Rohingyas, despite us being so resource-constrained.

So the point is, we shouldn't be obsessed with "image" but rather with "performance". Change the facts on the ground—as we did in Bangladesh—and the image will automatically reflect it. Perform, uphold democratic values, institute rule of law, and ensure economic justice, and the image automatically becomes better and better. Suppress freedom and muzzle critical views, jail critics, denigrate peaceful demonstrations, demonise dissent and enact laws like the DSA, then our "image" will be damaged and we cannot gain widespread acceptability regardless of our economic success.

Mahfuz Anam is Editor and Publisher, The Daily Star.