Economic thinking precedes political choices

Sulav Chowdhury With the state of things currently prevailing in the country's political scene, every conscious citizen tends to get baffled by the sequences of events stemming mostly from narrow, ego-centric stances that seem to essentially characterise the political culture of the country. Political process evolves through changes and these changes must be directed towards the welfare of the millions. This is ultimately what politics is meant to stand for. But the unremitting wrangling in our political culture barely allows any space for individual freedom and independent thought process to evolve. It is needless to say that as long as the economy of a country is not established on a strong foundation, it keeps playing itself out. Economic growth has traditionally been attributed to the accumulation of human and physical capital, and increased productivity arising from technological innovation. Economic growth is also the result of developing new products and services, which have been described as "demand creating". In theories of economic growth, the mechanisms that let it take place and its main determinants are abundant. One popular theory in the 1940s, for example, was that of the Big Push, which suggested that countries needed to jump from one stage of development to another through a virtuous cycle, in which large investments in infrastructure and education, coupled with private investments, would move the economy to a more productive stage. It is indeed a good piece of news that the Bangladesh economy showed off an exceptional level of resilience in recent times when economic and financial downturn had slackened off the pace of the big economies. This has compelled the economists and theorists to give a fresh look at our country. It is not difficult to discern the factors that contributed to achieving that notch. A good number of brave entrepreneurs, innovative young investors, productive labour force, classical amalgamation of capitalistic economic formula with contraction in monetary policies are responsible for the laudable achievement in the economy. But it remains to be said that economic policies can only sustain and generate results when political wisdom is supportive and forthcoming. It is unproductive and suicidal to resort to political whims and caprices and sidetrack the prospective economic aspects. Unfortunately, we are very much onto that course through our recent political activities. Political dissent is a democratic characteristic. Debate over policies, development mechanism, rural and urban development etc., could spark out a thought process capable of suggesting fitting mechanisms and methods. But wrangling over gratuitous issues would result in nothing but impediments to the pace of economic development. If economic development is hindered, it creates holes in the social safety net and justice system. Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia, argued that market society offered a cultural utopia based on freedom of choice. He portrayed a hypothetical libertarian world where individuals would freely choose their lifestyles, their mores, and their culture, so long as they did not impinge on the rights of others to make the same choices. Such a vision has held great appeal for many, but it has skirted the empirical question of how much choice actually is available in the market, or would be available in a more libertarian society. Cultural diversity is a reflection of people's connection to their local environment, to the living world. Centuries of conquest, colonialism, and drummed-up 'development' have already eroded much of the world's cultural diversity, but economic globalisation is rapidly accelerating the process. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant has formulated an individualist definition of "enlightenment" similar to this concept: "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." He argued that this immaturity comes not from a lack of understanding, but from a lack of courage to think independently. Against this intellectual cowardice, Kant urged the need to "dare to be wise!" This sort of mature thinking we anticipate in policy framework structures of our political parties. People and their well-being, their freedom of thinking and freedom of choices, economic development should be preferred to partisan political choices and selections. In Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen says, "It is the power of reason that allows us to consider our obligations and ideals as well as our interests and advantages. To deny this freedom of thought would amount to a severe constraint on the reach of our rationality." The main point to appreciate is that what we make of democracy depends to a great extent on how much we are ready to put into it. To flourish democratic ethos, we have to be extremely cautious in our social and political choices. This applies both for the political parties and for the mass people. While the government would provide for social security, the opposition would engage them in filling out the gaps in that security apparatus. So, a robust security chain would be delivered of that political action, which would ultimately help the people to shape society. The real debate associated with globalisation is, ultimately, as Amartya Sen puts it, not about the efficiency of markets, nor about the importance of modern technology. The debate, rather, is about inequality of power. That is why 'Silence' is a powerful enemy of social justice. Is it then our pathetic silence that is allowing political parties to be apathetic about us? Are our social and political choices misleading? What should come first-economic development or political choices? Our choices should, in all fairness, be based on logical and prudent thinking. Economic development and growth should get priority over the culture of political choices and selection to make space for political wisdom. The writer is secretary, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BKMEA). [email protected]