Development discourse and depoliticisation in Bangladesh
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Hasan Mahmud
DEVELOPMENT, as general knowledge defines it, is good and necessary, and by means of this the West has intervened, implementing all manner of development projects in the poor regions of the world. When these projects fail, as they do with surprising promptness, they nonetheless generate a host of customary and unacknowledged effects including the expansion of bureaucratic state power and the translation of the political realities of poverty and powerlessness into "technical" problems awaiting solution by "development" agencies and experts.
The term 'development' has, at present, been so popular both in the academia and the practical field that it seems almost self-explanatory despite considerable disagreements among those concerned with regard to its precise meaning. The situation has become further complicated when one sees that the consistently failing development projects are applied everywhere with the solemn goal of eradicating poverty. However, the history of development in 'Lesotho' (a small country surrounded by South Africa which was the most preferred field of development initiatives during 1970s and 1980s) presents a distinct approach that leads us to a new way of appreciating development projects and unravels the long-standing riddle of what the development projects stand for and why the 'failed' projects are repeated again and again despite of their failure to achieve the stated goal (Ferguson 1986). This approach, following Foucault's genealogical analysis of prison, identifies two essential functions of development projects: depoliticisation of the political affairs, and expansion of state and bureaucratic power and control over extreme interior of the territory.
As the development discourse suggests, the problem of poverty in the Third World is precisely because of the lack of productive technology necessary for modern production in both agriculture and industry. Therefore, what they require to come out of poverty is only to apply those technologies and they will eventually 'catch up' with the developed countries. But the concerted 'Development Drama' played by various development agencies (World Bank, IMF, etc.) over more than two decades ended up with a more severe poverty situation in 'Poor Lesotho'. People had been pushed to abject poverty with subsequent environment, health and various other social disasters. All these counter consequences were evident from the very onset of development initiatives in Lesotho. Then why did both the government and development agencies keep applying those failed projects?
Lesotho was a post-colonial state where the bureaucratic control was characteristically weak. Much of the territory was out of the state's direct control. If the government took initiatives to extend its control over the uncontrolled regions, there were possibilities of public resistances. However, development projects facilitated building of infrastructures necessary for state intervention in those remote areas without resistances, and even sometimes with public cooperation. For people were made to believe that such infrastructure development would help them become rich. But alas! Instead of being rich, they were caught up in the persisting poverty trap with addition- 'government surveillance' by means of administrative centers, town halls and garrisons in the remote interiors.
The interest of the development agencies rested in the investment of what they had at their disposal to offer. That is, they could invest the money to buy technology appropriate for poverty eradication. Since any investment generated profit, they sought out identifying sectors to intervene and defined the problem in technological terms that called for technological solutions; this was what kept the interest of the development agencies in Lesotho.
While all development projects showed deleterious consequences in Lesotho, development agencies continued with the belief that they must keep on doing as long as their motive was to help the poor. If something to be blamed for the apparent failure, that was the state's responsibility in the name of poor governance and inefficiency.
However, the main cause of poverty in Lesotho was not their lack of technology, but the colonial domination of South Africa. Historically Lesotho had been transformed into a cheap labour base for the neighbouring mining industry in South Africa that kept people in Lesotho poor. They had been put in a structural cage which extremely delimited their potentials to grow.
The omnipresent and overpowering position of development discourse in the Third World is justified as the necessary corrective to economic development. However, as Ferguson reveals, the relegation of the problem of underdevelopment to mere 'technical' one renders all the development initiatives to failure in the discourse of development, failure, thus, has become a norm. In fact, what is crucial in the development discourse is that it 'remakes' or 'reconstructs' the object of operation (poverty elimination) in a generic fashion so as to enable it to apply the particular type of 'technical solutions'. The inexorable failure engenders questions about its worth. However, a normative qualification that the development programme essentially aims at poor people's welfare has been espoused to offset any claim to reconsider the strategic stance of the discourse. This intrinsic motive for welfare of people thus helps sustain the 'failed' development initiatives in spite of their repeated failure to achieve the goal.
A qualified degree of generalisation for this approach is germane to the Third World, or more precisely, the so-called least developed countries (LDCs). Thus, it can help us understand the present impasse in political and economic development reform project in Bangladesh.
Being one of the largest LDCs, Bangladesh shares many features with Lesotho with particular reference to development initiatives. Since its inception in 1971, Bangladesh has received a large amount of development aids from the international communities. In spite of the array of development programmes over the last 35 years, it still remains at the bottom of the list of LDCs, according to any development index. This is precisely because the development discourse has defined our problem of poverty in a purely technical term, completely expurgating the long history of colonial exploitation and the political complexities.
It designates poverty as caused by the lack of modern knowledge and equipments of farming, traditional social systems, large population size, inefficient government, etc., which constructs the idea that the poor people of Bangladesh lack necessary technology to be rich and thus are themselves responsible for their poverty. Hence it is the divine duty of the development financiers and practitioners to provide with the corrective assistance to improve-modern technology, knowledge, attitudes, policies, credits, good governance, etc. The development agencies (World Bank, IMF, ADB, USaid, JICE, SIDA, etc) propound the idea that their formulae adequately addresses the problem, and that they are doing a great favour for the poor Bangladeshi people. But a prudent analysis of, let us say, the dazzling issues of peace in the CHT, or desertification in the south-west of Bangladesh and the ensuing poverty in those region are never mere technical problems as the World Bank-IMF define.
In the CHT, people- especially the ethnic groups -- are said to become terrorists and the problem is often related to their perennial poverty. But it is never mentioned that the problem has been created by the World Bank funded Karnaphuli Hydraulic Dam that uprooted more than 300,000 people from their native land. The growing poverty and environmental hazards in the south-west of the country (especially Khulna Division) are referred to as caused by the lack of improved technology and the know-how of modern agriculture while anybody can relate it directly to the establishment of Farakka Dam (which is also funded by the World Bank!). And with no surprise, the World Bank has now been proposing further projects to overcome those problems for which their myopic strategy is responsible.
The development discourse has attained a new momentum during last two decades where it no more depends on the government's direct participation, and demands the government to retreat from development activities. Thus it stresses more on free market and free trade so that private capital can operate without any intervention by the government. This is justified by the government's inefficiency with regard to good governance. Hence privatization of all state properties and commercialization of the welfare provisions that the state had been providing so far including education, health, pensions, etc.
In recent months, Bangladesh is taken by international media for political fermentations. All the major political parties are under tremendous pressure. Over hundreds of political leaders have been arrested and imprisoned without trial. The whole government apparatus has been deployed to expurgate politics and politicians from national development projects. Numbers of new committees have been formed headed by nonpolitical- mostly bureaucrats- to reform the country. And democracy has been openly accused as bad, inefficient particularly in the hand of corrupt politicians. Hence politics without politicians seems to have been taken as the state doctrine. And interestingly, all the proponents of democracy -- the US and the UK with all other developed countries -- have expressed their satisfaction with the government's moves. With an emergency declaration, the present government is running its operations, giving birth to a new type of government in recent times.
As the logic goes, the major inefficiency of the political parties in Bangladesh does not concern good governance, but their inability to protect the interest of the global capital in Bangladesh. Corruption has increased undoubtedly; yet one thing must be noted that the political governments could not make certain decisions in favour of the multinational corporations (MNCs) -- for example, the distribution of natural resources, opening of sea port, privatisation of jute industry and major banks and other public enterprises, transit to India, etc. This failure of the government is due to the fact that mass people in Bangladesh do not approve such operations and they do react unfavourably to any of such moves. Therefore, it is difficult for any elected government to act in favour of the MNCs.
Given the huge population of around 150 million and a recent upsurge in remittances flows to the villages, Bangladesh -- especially the rural areas -- does offer a potential market for the MNCs and therefore, it has become necessary to prepare a level-playing ground for the MNCs to operate in the emerging market place in Bangladesh.
This is evident in that the MNCs are now negotiating with the interim government for their share -- Indian giant TATA proposing a $4.0 billion investment in coal mining, UK-based Mittal group offering $2.9 billions in petrochemicals, US MNC Chevron negotiating with natural gas and petroleum excavation, the World Bank offering reformation of the seaport and construction of a deep-sea port, etc and the government has also been responding to these demands more favourably. Meanwhile, we have seen the adoption of a budget that is, according to domestic trade and industry circles, likely to adversely affect domestic production and business, closure of jute mills, extension of taxes to more services and consumer goods, small incomes, etc.
With regard to the issue of development policy, there is very slim difference between the previous governments and the present one. The present CTG is following the same development policy, even with stronger compliance.
Meanwhile, welfare budget is being sought to be trimmed while taxes are sought to be improved on domestic production and business and consumer goods. Policy moves are also on to open the market for foreign capital and divest public industries and other properties. It will need to be carefully waterhad as to how such policy actions affect the lives of the common people. However, the basic of this caretaker government, according to the Constitution and public expectation, is the arrangemnet for holding a force and fair election.
What is evident in this argument is that the present situation in Bangladesh is a direct result of the influence of the development discourse. Bangladesh is now an organized country under the control of the state bureaucracy and people are much more politically conscious. As democracy makes accountable the public representatives to the people (though nominally) through general elections, the MNCs find it difficult to persuade the government even after bribing the major political leaders, giving rise to massive corruption.
It is, relatively easier for the MNCs to gain necessary influence over the state machinery under conditions where there is no "accountability" of the government to the people. Hence the deployment of the anti-politics machine- 'Development'- in both discursive and operational level. Over months the media have disseminated reports of various kinds of corruption only of the political leaders and inefficiency of state institutions in controlling them. Ultimately, the declaration of emergency had become inevitable and the interim caretaker government had to assume responsibilites of running the affairs of the country.
The discourse of development, with its depoliticising effect, tames people's potential courage and encourages them to accept conditions where anything political is labeled as corrupt and hence against national interest in the hope that this will bring 'development'.
The hope of development in the near future is purporatedly sought to assuage people's frustration with the previous development activities and also any of thier discontentment over the present situation. This condition has the danger of making the true functions of development irrevalent to the needs of the majority people.
The writer is a Monbusho Scholar in the Global Studies Programme, Sophia University, Japan.
He may be reached at
'mahmud735@gmail.com'
DEVELOPMENT, as general knowledge defines it, is good and necessary, and by means of this the West has intervened, implementing all manner of development projects in the poor regions of the world. When these projects fail, as they do with surprising promptness, they nonetheless generate a host of customary and unacknowledged effects including the expansion of bureaucratic state power and the translation of the political realities of poverty and powerlessness into "technical" problems awaiting solution by "development" agencies and experts.
The term 'development' has, at present, been so popular both in the academia and the practical field that it seems almost self-explanatory despite considerable disagreements among those concerned with regard to its precise meaning. The situation has become further complicated when one sees that the consistently failing development projects are applied everywhere with the solemn goal of eradicating poverty. However, the history of development in 'Lesotho' (a small country surrounded by South Africa which was the most preferred field of development initiatives during 1970s and 1980s) presents a distinct approach that leads us to a new way of appreciating development projects and unravels the long-standing riddle of what the development projects stand for and why the 'failed' projects are repeated again and again despite of their failure to achieve the stated goal (Ferguson 1986). This approach, following Foucault's genealogical analysis of prison, identifies two essential functions of development projects: depoliticisation of the political affairs, and expansion of state and bureaucratic power and control over extreme interior of the territory.
As the development discourse suggests, the problem of poverty in the Third World is precisely because of the lack of productive technology necessary for modern production in both agriculture and industry. Therefore, what they require to come out of poverty is only to apply those technologies and they will eventually 'catch up' with the developed countries. But the concerted 'Development Drama' played by various development agencies (World Bank, IMF, etc.) over more than two decades ended up with a more severe poverty situation in 'Poor Lesotho'. People had been pushed to abject poverty with subsequent environment, health and various other social disasters. All these counter consequences were evident from the very onset of development initiatives in Lesotho. Then why did both the government and development agencies keep applying those failed projects?
Lesotho was a post-colonial state where the bureaucratic control was characteristically weak. Much of the territory was out of the state's direct control. If the government took initiatives to extend its control over the uncontrolled regions, there were possibilities of public resistances. However, development projects facilitated building of infrastructures necessary for state intervention in those remote areas without resistances, and even sometimes with public cooperation. For people were made to believe that such infrastructure development would help them become rich. But alas! Instead of being rich, they were caught up in the persisting poverty trap with addition- 'government surveillance' by means of administrative centers, town halls and garrisons in the remote interiors.
The interest of the development agencies rested in the investment of what they had at their disposal to offer. That is, they could invest the money to buy technology appropriate for poverty eradication. Since any investment generated profit, they sought out identifying sectors to intervene and defined the problem in technological terms that called for technological solutions; this was what kept the interest of the development agencies in Lesotho.
While all development projects showed deleterious consequences in Lesotho, development agencies continued with the belief that they must keep on doing as long as their motive was to help the poor. If something to be blamed for the apparent failure, that was the state's responsibility in the name of poor governance and inefficiency.
However, the main cause of poverty in Lesotho was not their lack of technology, but the colonial domination of South Africa. Historically Lesotho had been transformed into a cheap labour base for the neighbouring mining industry in South Africa that kept people in Lesotho poor. They had been put in a structural cage which extremely delimited their potentials to grow.
The omnipresent and overpowering position of development discourse in the Third World is justified as the necessary corrective to economic development. However, as Ferguson reveals, the relegation of the problem of underdevelopment to mere 'technical' one renders all the development initiatives to failure in the discourse of development, failure, thus, has become a norm. In fact, what is crucial in the development discourse is that it 'remakes' or 'reconstructs' the object of operation (poverty elimination) in a generic fashion so as to enable it to apply the particular type of 'technical solutions'. The inexorable failure engenders questions about its worth. However, a normative qualification that the development programme essentially aims at poor people's welfare has been espoused to offset any claim to reconsider the strategic stance of the discourse. This intrinsic motive for welfare of people thus helps sustain the 'failed' development initiatives in spite of their repeated failure to achieve the goal.
A qualified degree of generalisation for this approach is germane to the Third World, or more precisely, the so-called least developed countries (LDCs). Thus, it can help us understand the present impasse in political and economic development reform project in Bangladesh.
Being one of the largest LDCs, Bangladesh shares many features with Lesotho with particular reference to development initiatives. Since its inception in 1971, Bangladesh has received a large amount of development aids from the international communities. In spite of the array of development programmes over the last 35 years, it still remains at the bottom of the list of LDCs, according to any development index. This is precisely because the development discourse has defined our problem of poverty in a purely technical term, completely expurgating the long history of colonial exploitation and the political complexities.
It designates poverty as caused by the lack of modern knowledge and equipments of farming, traditional social systems, large population size, inefficient government, etc., which constructs the idea that the poor people of Bangladesh lack necessary technology to be rich and thus are themselves responsible for their poverty. Hence it is the divine duty of the development financiers and practitioners to provide with the corrective assistance to improve-modern technology, knowledge, attitudes, policies, credits, good governance, etc. The development agencies (World Bank, IMF, ADB, USaid, JICE, SIDA, etc) propound the idea that their formulae adequately addresses the problem, and that they are doing a great favour for the poor Bangladeshi people. But a prudent analysis of, let us say, the dazzling issues of peace in the CHT, or desertification in the south-west of Bangladesh and the ensuing poverty in those region are never mere technical problems as the World Bank-IMF define.
In the CHT, people- especially the ethnic groups -- are said to become terrorists and the problem is often related to their perennial poverty. But it is never mentioned that the problem has been created by the World Bank funded Karnaphuli Hydraulic Dam that uprooted more than 300,000 people from their native land. The growing poverty and environmental hazards in the south-west of the country (especially Khulna Division) are referred to as caused by the lack of improved technology and the know-how of modern agriculture while anybody can relate it directly to the establishment of Farakka Dam (which is also funded by the World Bank!). And with no surprise, the World Bank has now been proposing further projects to overcome those problems for which their myopic strategy is responsible.
The development discourse has attained a new momentum during last two decades where it no more depends on the government's direct participation, and demands the government to retreat from development activities. Thus it stresses more on free market and free trade so that private capital can operate without any intervention by the government. This is justified by the government's inefficiency with regard to good governance. Hence privatization of all state properties and commercialization of the welfare provisions that the state had been providing so far including education, health, pensions, etc.
In recent months, Bangladesh is taken by international media for political fermentations. All the major political parties are under tremendous pressure. Over hundreds of political leaders have been arrested and imprisoned without trial. The whole government apparatus has been deployed to expurgate politics and politicians from national development projects. Numbers of new committees have been formed headed by nonpolitical- mostly bureaucrats- to reform the country. And democracy has been openly accused as bad, inefficient particularly in the hand of corrupt politicians. Hence politics without politicians seems to have been taken as the state doctrine. And interestingly, all the proponents of democracy -- the US and the UK with all other developed countries -- have expressed their satisfaction with the government's moves. With an emergency declaration, the present government is running its operations, giving birth to a new type of government in recent times.
As the logic goes, the major inefficiency of the political parties in Bangladesh does not concern good governance, but their inability to protect the interest of the global capital in Bangladesh. Corruption has increased undoubtedly; yet one thing must be noted that the political governments could not make certain decisions in favour of the multinational corporations (MNCs) -- for example, the distribution of natural resources, opening of sea port, privatisation of jute industry and major banks and other public enterprises, transit to India, etc. This failure of the government is due to the fact that mass people in Bangladesh do not approve such operations and they do react unfavourably to any of such moves. Therefore, it is difficult for any elected government to act in favour of the MNCs.
Given the huge population of around 150 million and a recent upsurge in remittances flows to the villages, Bangladesh -- especially the rural areas -- does offer a potential market for the MNCs and therefore, it has become necessary to prepare a level-playing ground for the MNCs to operate in the emerging market place in Bangladesh.
This is evident in that the MNCs are now negotiating with the interim government for their share -- Indian giant TATA proposing a $4.0 billion investment in coal mining, UK-based Mittal group offering $2.9 billions in petrochemicals, US MNC Chevron negotiating with natural gas and petroleum excavation, the World Bank offering reformation of the seaport and construction of a deep-sea port, etc and the government has also been responding to these demands more favourably. Meanwhile, we have seen the adoption of a budget that is, according to domestic trade and industry circles, likely to adversely affect domestic production and business, closure of jute mills, extension of taxes to more services and consumer goods, small incomes, etc.
With regard to the issue of development policy, there is very slim difference between the previous governments and the present one. The present CTG is following the same development policy, even with stronger compliance.
Meanwhile, welfare budget is being sought to be trimmed while taxes are sought to be improved on domestic production and business and consumer goods. Policy moves are also on to open the market for foreign capital and divest public industries and other properties. It will need to be carefully waterhad as to how such policy actions affect the lives of the common people. However, the basic of this caretaker government, according to the Constitution and public expectation, is the arrangemnet for holding a force and fair election.
What is evident in this argument is that the present situation in Bangladesh is a direct result of the influence of the development discourse. Bangladesh is now an organized country under the control of the state bureaucracy and people are much more politically conscious. As democracy makes accountable the public representatives to the people (though nominally) through general elections, the MNCs find it difficult to persuade the government even after bribing the major political leaders, giving rise to massive corruption.
It is, relatively easier for the MNCs to gain necessary influence over the state machinery under conditions where there is no "accountability" of the government to the people. Hence the deployment of the anti-politics machine- 'Development'- in both discursive and operational level. Over months the media have disseminated reports of various kinds of corruption only of the political leaders and inefficiency of state institutions in controlling them. Ultimately, the declaration of emergency had become inevitable and the interim caretaker government had to assume responsibilites of running the affairs of the country.
The discourse of development, with its depoliticising effect, tames people's potential courage and encourages them to accept conditions where anything political is labeled as corrupt and hence against national interest in the hope that this will bring 'development'.
The hope of development in the near future is purporatedly sought to assuage people's frustration with the previous development activities and also any of thier discontentment over the present situation. This condition has the danger of making the true functions of development irrevalent to the needs of the majority people.
The writer is a Monbusho Scholar in the Global Studies Programme, Sophia University, Japan.
He may be reached at
'mahmud735@gmail.com'