Originally posted in The Daily Star on 20 December 2021
On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh’s independence this year, we have highlighted our achievements as a country. Indeed, our country’s success story in the economic and social arenas are spectacular. From an extremely poor country with high population, undiversified economy and poor infrastructure, Bangladesh has become a lower middle-income country and will graduate from the Least Development Country (LDC) group to the Developing Country group in 2026. A shining example among the other LDCs, Bangladesh’s economic and social performances also outshine other South Asian countries in many respects. Economists have analysed the reasons behind this performance quite extensively.
On the eve of the 50th Victory Day of Bangladesh, a number of international media also asked me if democracy was necessary for development. In fact, there are sporadic discussions among certain quarters in the country on the necessity of democracy in the development process. There are also attempts to redefine democracy conveniently. While the political scientists are in the most suitable position to provide a wholesome explanation of the concept, an educated mind also understands the basic concept of democracy.
Theoretically, in a democratic environment, there are better opportunities for economic, social and cultural growth. Democracy is also crucial for sustainable development in the long run. Many scholars, including Milton Friedman, argued that a higher degree of rights led to economic development. Empirically, the relationship between growth and democracy is inconclusive. There exist innumerable studies that discuss whether democracy is necessary for growth. Some empirical studies indicate that democracy does not have much relevance for economic growth. On the other hand, more recent studies concluded that democracy has a significant impact on economic growth.
In my opinion, when we try to link or delink development with democracy, two aspects must be kept in mind. We must comprehend the meaning of both these terms. To start with, by democracy we do not merely mean expressing individual choices by taking part in the electoral process. It is not only about voting in a government in a country—it is about the participatory process in all development efforts of the government of the day. It is about social and institutional transformations where personal growth and welfare are considered integral. It should be a right to have an improved quality of life which is valued and respected.
This brings us to the other concept: development. Though we often use “growth” and “development” interchangeably, the depth of these two concepts varies. Growth is a narrow concept that only captures the rise in income, while development entails a deeper meaning of progress. It is about all-encompassing advancement in human life. Therefore, even with a high growth rate, a country may not be necessarily developed. From that perspective, the United Nations categorises countries based not only on per capita income, but also on human asset index and economic vulnerability index. The World Bank, on the other hand, divides countries based only on income. A high-income country may not necessarily be a developed country. The danger of income-based progress is widely known. It only looks at income per capita and ignores the quality of life and other non-economic requirements of human beings. Growth-based progress also ignores inequality, distributive justice, and inclusivity. It denies the basic rights of a human being. It is no wonder that, while countries are economically progressing, inequality is also increasing around the world.
Therefore, when examples of undemocratic countries are brought up as stories of economic success, these aspects remain absent in the perspective. Recently, China is cited by many as a case study, where the economy is growing fast even in an undemocratic environment. This is an utterly short-sighted proposition that contradicts the whole concept of development itself.
Singapore, under the leadership of former President Lee Kuan Yew, is also cited by many. He transformed a third world country into a first world nation within only three decades. However, the other side of the growth story is not encouraging. While Singapore prospered phenomenally at that time, dissenting views were not tolerated. The rule of Lee Kuan Yew is compared with that of an autocrat, who would intimidate any opposition in his way. Therefore, one must not lose sight of the suppression faced by its people. On the positive side, efficiency, honesty, corruption-free administration, absence of red tape, and tax benefits facilitated foreign investment and trade. There was no compromise on discipline in the country. This is unthinkable in countries like Bangladesh, where corruption and politics go hand in hand.
It is surprising to see such discussions of the so-called benevolent dictatorship surface in a country whose people fought for its own democracy and economic emancipation in 1971. Have we not seen that, despite the economic progress of then Pakistan, the eastern part of the country (Bangladesh) was deprived of all the benefits? The centre of power was located in West Pakistan, and people in East Pakistan had no rights. So, the rights had to be acquired at the cost of blood and lives. And then again, after independence, people’s voices were suppressed by the military and autocratic regimes for a long time. Economic growth was not stalled, but that was not necessarily distributed among all. Dysfunctional democracy with little or no accountability and transparency benefited mostly those who were in or close to power.
Bangladesh is at a crossroads now. It has made impressive economic and social progress over the last five decades. But a lot more should be done in the coming years if it has to fulfil the commitment of establishing a just society—as enshrined in the constitution. Unfortunately, the circle of beneficiary groups created around political power is becoming larger and stronger day by day. That circle is hijacking the benefits of growth, leaving the larger communities behind. High and wilful bank loan defaults, cheating innocent customers through malpractices in the e-commerce sector, corruption in the health sector, poor quality of education, illegal land and forest-grabbing, pollution of waterbodies, violence against women, and reckless killing through road accidents are some of the examples that reflect how these unacceptable practices continue to remain unabated despite high growth. People’s voices are either suppressed or unheard in most cases.
So, democracy should also be about getting the opportunity to take part in determining an individual’s own interest, rather than having others’ interests imposed on them. Transparency in resource allocation and its utilisation, accountability of resource management, protection of human rights including freedom of expression—all of these are components of the democratic package and essential for inclusive development. Hence, the true meaning of democracy should lie in empowering people through enabling their participation in the electoral and development process. Freedom through free and fair democracy is a defining component of a long-lasting development process. The journey of the highly developed and strong democratic countries vindicate this experience. Bangladesh’s next important goal should be to achieve a strong democracy in all spheres: economic, social, cultural, and political.
Dr Fahmida Khatun is the executive director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).