Good governance in emerging democracies of South Asia

Barrister Moudud Ahmed gave a lecture at a seminar at Harvard University Asia Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts on October 19, 2011. The title of his lecture was: "Good Governance in Emerging Democracies: Challenges in a South Asia Context." The session chair, Professor Roderick MacFarquhar introduced the speaker with the following kind remarks: "Moudud Ahmed, MP has served as Vice President and Prime Minister of Bangladesh. He is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court. He was a Freedom Fighter in the War of Liberation in 1971. On April 2007, Moudud Ahmed was arrested during the military-backed government's tenure and spent 20 months in jail without any trial." The introduction made some informed audience a bit uneasy. In this article, we examine our notes on Ahmed's presentation from an academic perspective. Our analysis is substantiated by narratives as well as statistics, not value-laden opinionated statements. We have carefully addressed the topic's gray area between popular understanding and empirical reality. Nevertheless, our commitment to accord primacy to democracy as the preeminently acceptable form of governance in Bangladesh-and elsewhere-remains total and irrefutable. Social science, according to Max Weber, is not just 'value related'; it is also 'power-related'. The clash between the two sometimes becomes inevitable. We have tried to minimise this kind of disagreement without compromising the validity of the facts on the ground. An examination of macroeconomic performances in Bangladesh shows that the average rate of gross domestic product (GDP) growth during General Ziaur Rahman's regime was only 2.3 per cent and during General Ershad's regime, GDP growth crawled along at 3.7 per cent. However, during the successive periods of democratic regimes (1991-2011), the GDP growth rate has been impressive: averaging around 6.0 per cent. Against this background, Ahmed's first presented a set of basic data on development indicators for five major countries of South Asia-including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. One of the indicators that Ahmed proudly mentioned was the achievement in poverty alleviation. His data shows that the percentage of people living below the poverty level in South Asia has declined from 78 per cent in 1972 to 40 per cent in 2011. This is an important piece of information. What is more important in the context of Bangladesh is that the percentage of people living below the poverty level has declined even further: in 2011 the figure is actually 31 per cent; not 40 per cent. This is a substantial achievement of the present government under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. In the second part, he focused on his perception of good governance, which includes elected government, independent judiciary and separation of power, freedom of press, rule of law, functioning parliament, effective parliamentary committees, and the decentralisation of public administration. One can add more elements-such as accountability, participation, predictability, transparency, responsiveness, forward vision, and, above all, commitment to good governance-to his list. Most people, more so students of politics, will certainly have some idea of what is intended by those elements in not only good governance, but also in good politics. His points also refer to activities surrounding the process and institutions of government that Ahmed repeatedly emphasised in his lecture. A systematic presentation of those features of good governance was a positive aspect of his lecture, although an in-depth analysis of each feature was required. Knowing full well that it is difficult to present all relevant points in 30 minutes, we would like to add one more feature to Ahmed's lecture. That is good governance should include sustainable human development and an environment that nurtures it. The aspects of sustainable environment are: i) an empowerment of men and women through capability development; ii) the expansion of capability should follow egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunities; and iii) a system of comprehensive natural resource management, including a provision of inter-generational transfer of that resource and a moral responsibility of governance. The last part of his presentation was weak: Ahmed was caught between political expediency and a moral impasse. He presented some news clippings with photographs that depicted intolerance and human rights violations by the present government, which is certainly unacceptable under the rule of democracy. Nobody will say that members of the Awami League (AL) are angels and the police force, saints. But during Ahmed's tenure as the law minister (2001-2006) under the four-party coalition government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the country was defined as a 'Cocoon of Terror' (Far Eastern Economic Review, April 4, 2002). The brutal campaign of terror against innocent and helpless citizens received considerable attention in the international press. The anarchical situation that marked unprecedented atrocities inflicted by ruling parties' leaders, cadres, and goons was unknown previously in the history of post-independent Bangladesh; it was altogether a new grammar of anarchy. Ahmed, being the law minister at that time for five years, cannot escape the moral and administrative responsibility of his government's record in this regard. While for the Awami League, it is a different story. The present government has successfully eradicated the curses of terrorism and extremism. Its role in promoting domestic peace and international cooperation is widely acknowledged by the world community. The above narrative may be a sobering reminder for Moudud Ahmed that speaking ill of his political opponent behind her back makes the seminar presentation a distortion and stereotypical, not an honour to Harvard scholarship. Syed Hasnath is a former Faculty Member, Boston University, and Ahsan Habib is at Northeastern University, Boston. They can be reached at email: shasnath@gmail.com