N N Tarun Chakravorty
Bangladesh has drawn the attention of the international community to its economic growth and development in the last three decades. At the same time, it has lacked good governance and institutions, and has become one of the most corrupt countries of the world. It started its journey in 1972 with the commitment of a fair and corruption-free state. The sense of this commitment developed in the people of the erstwhile East Bengal in the course of being deprived of the fair share in the Pakistan state over 23 years. The Bengalis were the victims of political, military and bureaucratic corruption existing in Pakistan where the West Pakistanis captured and held the maximum power and positions. It made the Bengalis rebellious against the Wes Pakistanis, and they fought for a separate state with the dream of a fair society. But from the beginning of the new state which appeared as Bangladesh in 1972, corruption became rife in the state machinery.
The economy remained weak until 1990. From 1991 onwards, the economy began to grow significantly, many development indicators have improved substantially but corruption has remained high all through.
In explaining the causes of corruption in Bangladesh, Professor Mushtaq Khan, in his journal article ‘Bangladesh: Economic Growth in a Vulnerable Limited Access Order’, has divided the span of time after the independence up to 2013 into three periods: from 1972 to 1975, from 1976 to 1990 and from 1991 to 2013. It is quite logical because the characteristics of governments in these three periods were different and the respective governments’ roles as regards to corruption, were also determined by different motives and factors. Let’s discuss the factors that contributed to the rise of corruption in these three periods.
The exploitation, deprivation and the oppression of the West Pakistanis ignited the Bengalis’ inherent secular and democratic spirit; therefore, the movement led by Awami League was inspired by democracy and secularism. Consequently, after the independence, the government formed by Awami League was a parliamentary form of democracy, which took nationalism, secularism, democracy and socialism as the main pillars of the constitution.
Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh emerged as a secular and democratic state, but it has never been able to reap the harvest of democracy in which accountability should be the dominant feature. It had a pluralist society and a multi-party system as a political form but the ruling party which led the independence movement was the main party in the so-called constituent assembly formed by those elected in 1970 to the National and Provincial Assemblies until a new Assembly was formed by the newly elected MPs in 1973. David Urch, his book ‘Crescent and Delta: The Bangladesh Story’, observes that it was, in fact, a parliamentary system without a parliament and all-powerful Prime Minister was answerable to nobody and the government was run by Presidential Orders until the new constitution came into being on 16 December 1972.
Although the fundamental rights of the people were guaranteed in the constitution, the President’s Orders promulgated on different occasions subsequently after the constitution had been adopted in the Constituent Assembly, took away the rights given by the constitution. David Urch thinks that the formation of irregular/paramilitary forces consisting of ruling party members to eliminate political opponents and allowing them to do anything in the name of maintaining law and order, was one of the main causes of corruption in the newly born country. In the new parliament formed after the 1973’s general election, out of 315 seats only 9 seats were captured by the opposition parties and independent candidates. Theories suggest that democracy cannot be strengthened without the existence of strong opposition in the parliament. Therefore, as a democratic leader Sheikh Mujib needed to promote an opposition in the parliament. Instead, according to David Urch, he rather wanted to show to the world that ‘there is no opposition in Bangladesh’. This notion damaged the foundation of democracy and paved the way for corruption to come about.
Many of the bureaucrats of independent Bangladesh worked under the Pakistani rulers, who had been suppressed and deprived for long. Very few of the civil servants appointed from the then East Pakistan were in high ranks. High ranks were occupied mostly by the West Pakistanis. The poorly paid Bengali civil servants had little opportunity to earn illegal money from bribery. They had to be satisfied with a small portion of the kickbacks shared by the high-ranking Pakistanis that they received as bribes from members of the public. The sense of oppression and deprivation of the East Pakistani bureaucrats that they went through during the Pakistan regime, may be considered a psychological factor for them to indulge in earning illegal money through bribery as soon as they got seated in key positions after the independence of Bangladesh.
Government’s acquisition of industrial and business concerns abandoned by the then West Pakistani owners who had owned a great deal of the business of the then East Pakistan, created a scope for corruption to come in. 47% of the modern industry, 71% of the private industry, 70% of the banking system and over 90% of the insurance system situated in the then East Pakistan, were owned by West Pakistanis. As the top positions in the bureaucracy in Pakistan were held by the West Pakistanis, the bureaucracy in the independent Bangladesh consisted of inefficient officers who held lower positions in the Pakistan period and thus was extremely weak. The performance of these bureaucrats was badly affected also by the Awami League activists and leaders who, being extremely powerful, bullied and controlled the bureaucrats.
There was no regulation as to how to appoint managers or administrators and how to operate the enterprises. Only the leaders and activists of Awami League, and their friends and relatives filled every post in industrial and business sectors and these people dictated not only the order but also how those enterprises should be operated. In fact, the Bangladesh Abandoned Properties (Control, Management and Disposal) Order i.e., the Acting President Order commonly called PO 16 issued on 28 February 1972 immediately after the independence of the country, created this scenario in which the ruling party people became the owners of all those that used to be owned by the West Pakistani/Biharis (non-Bengalis). Looting, plundering and smuggling were involved in owning and then selling these assets, leading to widespread corruption in independent Bangladesh (Urch, 2008).
The second phase of corruption came following the Nationalisation Order in 1974. By this order, the government nationalised all banks, insurance companies and industries, bringing the industry to under 10 corporations for which board member positions were all filled by Awami League activists and their family members, relatives and friends. The only qualification for these people was their alignment with the ruling party. As a result, the whole economic and financial sector became sick with chaos, nepotism, favoritism and corruption (Urch, 2008).
Robbery, extortion, intimidation, looting of police stations, banks, bazars, grabbing properties and shooting adversaries, hijacking, sabotage etc., broke out in the newly born state and these activities were done mostly by the ruling party people or in the shelter of the ruling party people. The sentiment that ‘we have liberated the country; so, it is ours, we will do whatever we want’ seized the minds of the leaders and activists of the Awami League and thus became unruly and tyrannical. Economically, the country was in a complete mess: smuggling and hoarding were perpetrated mostly by the Awami League members, inflation being extremely high (50%) led people to smuggling and black marketeering of goods.
The acts made by the President Order aimed at banning black marketeering and controlling activities mentioned above were applied from a partisan view. It means that big culprits were able to escape arrest or any trouble through bribes or the ‘big brothers’ of the party and that only the opponent and the innocent became the sufferers. The supreme leader in power showed leniency to his party men and thus failed to combat corruption.
The sentiment, ‘We have liberated the country; so, it is ours, we will do whatever we want’, absence of strong opposition parties and the government head’s leniency and favoritism to his party members, family members and relatives, and inclusion of party members in the bureaucracy, were the main causes of this widespread corruption in the early stage of new Bangladesh.
If the absence of opposition and the absence of accountability were the main causes of corruption, then the situation was further aggravated for corruption to increase with the declaration of emergency and the subsequent fourth amendment of the constitution banning all political parties, but one, all newspapers but four owned by the ruling party people, suspending all fundamental rights, empowering the government for preventive detention. Awami League, the ruling party, was transformed into BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Shramik Awami League) and a few other parties merged into it and many civil and army bureaucrats became its members.
The argument for the formation of BAKSAL and a one-party rule, according to Sheikh Mujib, was to uphold the interest of peasants and workers in a socialist pattern. But the reality is that Sheikh Mujib, the president became nervous and frightened by the growing opposition and protest from political parties and the growing discontent of the people. He actually wanted to suppress political activism against his government and wanted to buy time with dramatic gestures (Urch, 2008).
According to David Lewis, a Professor at London School of Economics, the government headed by the father of the nation at the beginning of the independent state from 1972 to 1975, became extremely authoritarian by nature to tackle activities like hijacking, looting, hoarding, smuggling, robbery, black marketeering, killings both by the ruling party people and the opposition, and the rebellion posed by some newly formed radical left-leaning parties like Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal, Sarbohara and so on. In doing so, the head of the government, Sheikh Mujib had to depend on his party men who took part in the liberation war and now became desperate in making fortunes anyhow because they thought they made the country independent and now deserved to do all these. Sheikh Mujib’s leniency towards his party members and the freedom fighters gave rise to corruption of both bureaucrats and politicians.
Dr. N N Tarun Chakravorty, Visiting Professor of Economics, Siberian Federal University. Editor-At-Large, South Asia Journal.
