When politics dictates economics

The influence of politics over economy is a reality, especially in the developing world-- defined in its own way. As politics is employed by many politicians as the key tool to trade in populism, economics too may become their happy hunting ground to further complement and reinforce it. So, strange it may not be that it is this combination that has helped many regimes thrive, though temporarily, and at a high cost to the people. When we say economics, it might tend to be misleading since a nation's economy is guided by those who happen to be politicians in power. What is actually meant is a bad mix that breeds all kinds of misdeeds from corruption of all hues to flagging partisan agenda in every bit of activity dubbed economic development.

Interestingly, the issue came up for discussion at the international conference hosted by the ICCB (International Chamber of Commerce Bangladesh) last month in Dhaka. Professor MA Taslim, among others, spoke of the outcome of this deadly combination that serves none but those in the helm and their cronies. "Economics and politics must be separated. Politics should not be in business and business should not be in politics," he said. He did sound emphatic on not conceding any space for the vicious mix. What he said was echoed by researcher and former Adviser Hussain Zillur Rahman. There is no point in arguing the way they reasoned out their statements. This is all very correct -- in a situation where politicians are supposed to be politicians and not businessmen. That is to say, when businessmen become politicians, and the state endorses the trend as not unbecoming, things assume an altogether different turn with the fundamentals falling apart. Politics becomes the domain of the businessmen.

This is one aspect of looking at the nexus, and obviously, it is more subjective in the sense that the incumbent/s will try to make the best use of the situation/position mostly on their own. But there is more to it when it comes to the state authorities cashing in on partisan interests while allowing everyone (!) a slice of the pie, though not necessarily in equal or equitable portion.

One will agree that this was not exactly the case with this country, say, a couple of decades or more ago. It was essentially the political legacy that demanded that political leaders grow on their own standings, on how close or pro-people they were in their dispensations. No matter how strong or fragile they were in money matters, political parties credited their credentials as attesting to their ability to serve the people, if elected. This scenario, for the most part, has ceased to be in practice. A dedicated party worker gets ignored in his gaining party ticket to contest the polls. His own party considers it profitable to find out somebody who has the money power, not only for his own sake to get elected in the polls but also to dish out lavishly to party fund -- to put it in the simplistic of ways. It would thus sound too naïve to think: who can afford to be so generous unless of course he is assured of good investment in terms of multiplier returns! To be more precise, if corrupt businessmen fund their own elections or of politicians of dubious record, they are going to expect returns on their investment.

The scenario of a country's investment may depend on the critical link between politics and business. A case in point could be investment in joint venture projects. Foreign collaborators might consider political connections as having significant impact on the success or failure of their investments. There are instances when joint venture or FDI projects initiated under one regime faced serious problems with the change of government. This, besides affecting development and economic projects, seriously tells upon the continuity of policies after changeover of power.

The methods and devices through which this politics-business nexus works barely claims the merit of being dug out as these are too open to be kept hidden. What it affects most are the development activities, especially, infrastructure building which involve contracts, subcontracts including a myriad range of sourcing that requires experience, expertise and indeed integrity. Deviation due to political influence is bound to end up in ruthless squandering. This country has experienced the ills in innumerable instances during the tenures of all successive governments. Elaboration on this is uncalled for.  

A new machination, though not totally unheard of, is being recently talked about. It is about politics deciding the state of the economy by way of manipulated statistics. At a workshop held in Dhaka last month, Professor Nurul Islam--renowned economist and the Deputy Chairman of the country's first Planning Commission--has been reported as saying that Bangladesh often fails to produce credible statistical data due to political pressure, causing serious deterrents to policymaking. "It is a big challenge for the country where democracy is not fully realised," he said while stressing the need for effective autonomy of the central bank in framing and enforcing policies on financial management--a sector that many believe has run wild due to lack of governance, prompted by political influence.

Sifting politics from business is challenging. The unholy mix breeds malgovernance leading inevitably to anarchy. Shouldn't the government acknowledge that it's bad, at least for the sake of recognising that it exists?

wasiahmed.bd@hotmail.com