'Six Kas' of reform and the looming economic crisis

What you understand by reform depends on who you are, what your profession is, what your political beliefs and views are, which party you support, and above all, how you think about the country.

What a rickshaw driver understands by reform may not be the same as what a political science professor understands. Similarly, the political parties and organizations active in the July uprising also have different definitions of reform. For example, BNP understands reform as the coming to power of a political government through a free, fair, credible, and acceptable election. To them, reform means restoring the voting rights of people who have been deprived of their vote for nearly a decade and half bringing the country back to a democratic process. However, the position of BNP's long-time ally, Jamaat-e-Islami, is different regarding reform. They believe that reform should come first, followed by elections. In other words, elections are not their top priority.

The interim government and their main stakeholders share a broadly similar position. They believe that the hundreds of people who lost their lives in the July uprising did not do so merely for an election. Therefore, there is uncertainty about whether a political government formed through elections will continue the reforms without institutional changes, or whether they will bring justice for the hundreds of deaths blamed on the Awami League during the July uprising. Given this uncertainty, the government's and their allies' priority list is as follows: 1. Justice, 2. Reform, and 3. Election. However, the BNP believes that no reform can be deemed legitimate without an elected government. This indicates a lack of political consensus on the issue of reform. As a result, the growing distance between the BNP and their long-time ally, Jamaat, has recently become evident.

The "Six Kas" of reform

In journalism, there is a term called the "5Ws (Kas) and one H." It is taught as part of basic journalism education. To understand an event, six key questions within the news are asked: What, Who, When, Where, Why, and How. In the context of reform, these questions can be posed as follows: What is reform, who is implementing it, when will it happen, where will it take place, why is reform needed, and how will it be carried out?

At the outset, it is stated that what reform means depends on who is answering the question. In other words, what they understand by reform is shaped by their thoughts, beliefs, philosophy, perspective, and expectations. For instance, some might view reform as the right to vote, having been denied the opportunity to vote in the past three elections. This person wishes to vote freely for their preferred candidate; they want a level playing field for all candidates; they expect that the government and its institutions will not interfere in the election; the vote must be free, fair, impartial, and credible, and the candidate who wins the majority vote should emerge victorious. After the election, the defeated candidates should not face any harassment from the winning candidate. For this person, reform means ensuring all the necessary constitutional, legal, and institutional steps are taken to guarantee these outcomes.

However, for the person who sells tea on the street, who has to pay daily extortion fees to the police and local political thugs, and who lives in constant anxiety about when the police might harass them, the meaning of reform is different. For them, reform means not having to pay extortion to anyone just to sell tea on the street; it means not being harassed by the police; it means living without fear for their livelihood, and ensuring that with their modest income, they can sustain their family. If the state takes steps to secure this, then there is no greater reform for them. Whether the country is governed by Sheikh Hasina, Dr. Yunus, or Tarique Rahman makes no difference to them. They are not even bothered by concerns about the state of democracy in the country; such worries do not rob them of sleep.

The meaning of reform primarily depends on an individual's worldly needs. After the political shift on August 5, those who lost their jobs and became unemployed; those whose businesses shut down or whose incomes decreased due to reduced production; and workers from companies where the owners are either in prison or on the run, and who are worried about their future – for them, no matter how much you talk about electoral reforms, justice for the perpetrators of genocide, citizens' voting rights, and democracy, these issues seem meaningless. In other words, when people's livelihoods are uncertain, talking about voting rights and democracy becomes futile.

Who will carry out the reforms?

The desire for change exists to some extent in everyone. Each person views reform in a different way — that's true; but the question is, who will carry out the crucial state reforms? Essentially, it is the government. After assuming office under the leadership of Dr. Muhammad Yunus on August 8, the interim government has formed 11 reform commissions, covering areas such as the constitution, electoral system, police, administration, and judiciary. It is said that these commissions will submit separate reports with recommendations to the government. The government will then engage in dialogue with political parties, and a program for implementing the reforms will be determined. However, the main issue being discussed is how long it will take to implement the reforms and whether an unelected government can carry them out. Do they have the mandate for this?

Let's assume that the recommendations made by the Constitutional Reform Commission cannot be implemented by issuing an ordinance. To amend the constitution, either a constituent assembly is needed or it must be done in the next parliament. There is significant doubt about whether the reality of forming a constituent assembly exists at present, or whether political consensus can be reached on this issue. This means that constitutional reform must take place in the next parliament; however, if other reforms are linked to constitutional reforms, how will such situations or complexities be avoided?

While there may not be much doubt about the sincerity of the interim government, their incompetence has already become apparent. There have been numerous questions raised, not only in political circles but also among the general public, regarding how many of the members of the advisory council are truly capable of governing the state. In any critical moment for the nation, trust is the most important thing. It is essential to inspire hope in the people. However, over the past five months, there is doubt about how much the interim government has been able to instill hope in the people regarding reforms and positive change. Especially considering the current situation in law and order, as well as the economy and business, it seems that the people are not particularly optimistic about reforms.

One of the greatest achievements of the Bengali people is the 1971 Liberation War. The type of narrative being created around this issue, the attempt to politicize historically resolved matters, and especially the changes made to textbooks in the shortest possible time to glorify the July uprising, have not been received positively by the general public. Many are questioning the connection between the July uprising and the criticism of 1971, the Liberation War, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and the 1972 constitution, as well as the new narrative being constructed around these issues. Therefore, if doubts arise in the public’s mind about the intentions or motivations of those who are supposed to carry out reforms, it will be impossible to create political unity in favor of reforms. The main reason why political unity has not been achieved on the reform issue over the past five months is likely the "intention" of the government and their stakeholders.

Where will the reforms take place?

If an ordinary person is asked where they would like to see reforms, they would undoubtedly first mention government institutions. In other words, if they can go to any state-run institution, funded by taxpayers' money, and receive the desired service without harassment, bribery, or time wastage — whether it is the police station, court, land office, passport office, or gas and electricity office — that would be seen as reform. Reform in government institutions is, therefore, a universal expectation. But in the past five months, has there been any change in government institutions?

It may be unrealistic to expect any institution to undergo a complete transformation in five months, but has the process of change started? Are the employees of government institutions still operating with the same mindset as before August 5? Do they still consider the service recipients as their subordinates? Do they still mind if they are not addressed as "sir"? Does a common person still feel nervous to enter a government official's office at the district or upazila level? Are people receiving services without bribery, harassment, or delays? Have any visible steps been taken to alleviate the citizens' harassment and suffering? The answer to these questions is probably "no." This is because the continuous reports coming from government offices, government hospitals, and other institutions through the media and social media make it hard to believe that any positive changes have truly started anywhere.

Failure in economic reforms is visible

The production of winter vegetables is good, so the prices of all types of vegetables in the market have decreased significantly. While the general consumers are happy with this, farmers at the grassroots level are disappointed because they are not receiving a fair price. There have even been media reports about the price of a cauliflower being as low as 2 taka or less at the farmer level. However, the prices of fish and meat remain high. People are also frustrated about the price of rice, the staple food of the Bengali people. The commerce advisor, as usual, blames the syndicates for this. If the government’s market policies are not pro-people and there is no plan to protect the farmers, then the country cannot move forward with political reforms alone.

In October, the government-run Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (TCB) launched a program to sell oil, lentils, and rice at subsidized prices through trucks for low-income people. As a result, even people without a TCB family card had the opportunity to purchase these products at subsidized rates in Dhaka and Chattogram, with 24,500 people benefiting daily. However, after just two months and seven days, the program was discontinued. In October, the Department of Agricultural Marketing had also launched a program to sell agricultural products at subsidized prices through trucks, which has now also been stopped. Additionally, due to allegations of irregularities, 4.3 million out of the 10 million TCB family cards have been canceled. Given the high inflation, where programs like truck sales should have been expanded to support the low and limited-income groups, the government’s decision to reduce or shut down such programs reflects its incompetence and lack of concern for the people.

The chaos in the banking sector and the government's initiatives to reform it have, in some cases, had the opposite effect. Due to various statements by the central bank's governor, public trust in several banks has plummeted so much that people are no longer depositing money in those banks. In fact, even those who had 10,000 taka saved are withdrawing their money. The labeling of certain banks as "weak" has left them almost bankrupt. During a national crisis, the government’s role should have been to build trust and confidence among the people. Instead, targeting a few businesses has created an atmosphere of fear in the entire business community. Business cannot thrive in an environment of fear. It is said that "the economy is nothing but hope," but the government has failed to create this hope or optimism. Many of the factories that have shut down were owned by people closely linked to the previous government, but what was the fault of the ordinary workers in those companies?

What benefit has the country gained by causing countless people to become unemployed or pushing them into a state of uncertainty by closing businesses or production? Some have even accused the government of trying to break the backbone of businesses by creating a climate of difficulties — such as the gas crisis, attempts to raise fuel prices, increasing VAT halfway through the fiscal year, and imposing various complexities under the guise of regulating businesses. This will not lead to new investments; rather, existing investors will seek to leave the country. The question arises whether the government and its stakeholders truly understand what will happen to the economy if all the businesses and investors leave. They cannot avoid the question of how they will carry out reforms or what the results of those reforms will be if they continue to break the backbone of the country's economy.

Additionally, increasing VAT on almost a hundred products halfway through the fiscal year is a rare occurrence. Raising VAT or indirect taxes will only increase inflation, which will, in turn, burden low-income people even more. These people had hoped that this government would help reduce their living costs, but the reality is the opposite.

Amin Al Rasheed: Journalist and Writer.