Why this hulla gulla about Yunus again?

Afsan Chowdhury
Published : 30 August 2012, 01:39 PM
Updated : 30 August 2012, 01:39 PM

The Yunus affair is back on the table once more with venom. Given that Yunus is no longer the MD of Grameen Bank this seems like a touch of overdoing unless there are other matters involved. The GoB wants to 'reform' GB and by extension Yunus while Yunus cries that the GoB wants to ruin GB by imposing itself. The matter too is much more political this time with Yunus interested to step into BNP's protective shades apart from seeking strength from Hillary Clinton's US. It is reported that more charges against him are coming soon and a series of reports are ready for public release.

Yunus is also being attacked both as a political and an economic criminal. So what's the link? Why him leaving all others alone?

* * *
Corruption doesn't seem to matter anymore in Bangladesh unless it has political contents. But does Yunus' corruption threaten the state of Bangladesh? Even if he has 'stolen' money, how much is it and how deeply has it affected the public life of average Bangladeshis compared to the large scale public and private sector thieves? In a country where the government cannot even control the price of onions which are manipulated during the Ramadan, it is at least odd that it should spend its meager resources chasing Yunus and his alleged pilfering. After calling Abul Hossain a "patriot", a man whose continuation allegedly held back funding of the Padma Bridge, the crusading zeal of the government is robbed of its good intent quantum. Ironically, Yunus has become the archetype 'chor' while the rest of the thieves who populate our life have become 'deshpremiks'.

There is no shortage of the corrupt and the criminal in Bangladesh and most people think that most politicians and businessmen are like that. Nor does anyone think that the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) is here to deal with corruption, whose track record in prosecuting the powerful corrupt of any sitting regime is zero. Why is Yunus the one who must be brought down?

* * *

At a TV show, where I said I thought the charges didn't merit the kind of national hulla-gulla that we are seeing given the level of national corruption, the gentleman who runs the station later told us, "Yunus should be tried for treason. He was a government servant during the caretaker government regime and he floated a political party. Would another officer be allowed to do that and not punished?" Yunus' economic crimes may be many but the one that seems to matter the most is that he tried to create a new political stream outside the traditional one and that too when the political parties were at bay.

Reading a few recent posts on the issue that supports the government stance, it is clear that the unpardonable act for which Yunus will be chased to the end is that he was trying to present a political alternative. Mainstream parties think that politics must be limited to those who are now in charge and new entrants in the political market must be dealt with harshly. It is not the economics, it is politics.

As it seems, there are certain problems in the ego sector between Sheikh Hasina and Yunus but does it merit this kind of animosity? There are many references by Hasina's faithful that she should also have gotten a Nobel Prize particularly for her CHT accord, which is now in tatters. Maybe she resents anyone being so well known other than her but they alone can hardly explain the passion she reserves in her tenacity in attacking Yunus. The hate goes deeper and the source is Yunus' political future building when the country was under martial law, which Hasina mentioned several times. He tried to replace her — and Khaleda — and that is indeed a serious matter. Yunus is the civilian political face of the Minus Two formula particularly since the army is no longer the enemy. It is a matter of political survival in the future and punishment for past deeds. That's why the campaign against Yunus will not go away.

* * *
The Fakhruddin-Moeen combo did try to do away with Hasina and Khaleda in the first phase which included some amateurish attempts at shaming of politicians. They also tried to 'reform' the political parties which also failed and attempted to promote several alternative groups — Ferdous Qureishi, Gen. Ibrahim, etc. — which never took off. It is in this stream that they supported Yunus and his political party floating, another quite doomed effort. Finally, they tried to get Hasina-Khaleda for corruption but dug their own hole as public support for the parties rose and for the military vanished. In the end they had to seek support from the same politicians they were trying to ruin for their safe and happy exit.

Hasina came to power as a not-unfriendly-to-the-army party and it stood by her particularly during the BDR crisis. More importantly, the army has also sized itself up and knows that solo military rule has no future in Bangladesh. It is this alliance of civil and military politicians that is the established formula now to run Bangladesh.

But partisan political loyalty is slightly waning in Bangladesh in general and there are more people than before who see none — AL, BNP, army — as problem solvers. And it is this undecided chunk of voters who feel no iron clad loyalty to the AL or the BNP and don't think that the army can solve much is what worries traditional politicians. Yunus represents or represented that in the eyes of Hasina and others. People who will take advantage of power vacuums and make new arrangements

* * *
In the existing oligopolistic system, the so-called 'civil society groups' have become a factor because they don't belong to any of the three and are vocal. It is no accident that Hasina trash these CSOs all the time. And that's why they seem like the 'juju' which many fear even though they are politically insignificant and quite powerless.

But does Yunus lead the new force if you will? Nothing says it's so? But Yunus is the most eminent member of the so-called group and has now become a symbol rather than a reality. In fact, his attitude and arrogance is closer to that of the two ladies than any other. The kind of a governance model many are looking for — participatory and democratic minded — is not what Yunus offers. He is always completely convinced of his cause and its rightness and is not exactly someone who has learnt to share credit for what is obviously a collective effort. He would at best be a benign dictator not a pluralistic democrat. His party idea was lousy, the timing was terrible and the capacity to survive and flourish in politics absent. His personality is also not free from the high sense of the self which plagues our politics.

But he is not being punished even for what he did. He is being set up as an example for others who may want to step out of line and look for options outside the existing oligopoly. It is a warning shot to those who might want choices outside the box. Yunus was driven by his ego but sponsored by the army. It is not the individual who matters, it is the possible anti-establishment coalitions which can include any number of players that it is mostly about.

* * *
As long as governance remains questionable and political institutions are ignored or weakened, this search for alternative will go on and so will attempts to intimidate them. The crisis is neither in Yunus, Grameen Bank or the AL; it is our collective failure to produce a workable political governance model in Bangladesh.

(The views expressed are the author's own and not those of bdnews24.com's).
————————-
Afsan Chowdhury is the Executive Editor of bdnews24.com