Magic halo of opinions

Published : 2 August 2015, 09:22 AM
Updated : 2 August 2015, 09:22 AM

Folklore has it that to settle an argument with a friend that children would like to read about, the Australian artist Norman Lindsay produced a children's illustrated book, The Magic Pudding, with food and fighting rather than fairies. Now a term widely known and used, the title refers to a pudding that, no matter how often is eaten, always reforms and regrows in order to be eaten again — and a pudding that was owned by three champions who must defend it from pudding thieves – those nasty varmints, scum of the earth.

Opinion commentary is tricky. Rarely useful, such exercises have always been in great supply, but they were never as plentiful as they are now. Perhaps there are broader gains as an exchange of views, however incorrect, and to generate ideas — so here goes.

As a generation born post-independence we heard and continue to hear about how successive authorities have let us down, holding us back from what we could have been. At school, kids of our generation were often told by teachers and senior students that democracy, just as in India, would have been the best model to give citizens a fair say about who should govern us to rebuild and repair our damaged country.

The trouble is that back then, or even recently, I failed to see such urging in the right context. Democracy is good, but for whom? Democratic practices are needed but how long might it take for us to get into that habit? Why are we not ready for it yet? Will we be ready for it in near future? Are there other alternatives?

Except for the brilliant ones who won scholarships, many middle-class and rich students in my generation endeavoured to go overseas, primarily to make a living. To finish education and start earning at home would take longer, with a less certain outcome.

In the course of two decades, our nation and our generation reveal a few interesting achievements. Many members of that urban migrating middle class have successfully settled abroad, some with family members, the nation has experienced economic prosperity, more capital has flowed (in and out), business activities flourish, capital works have been done, there are remarkable achievements in educational and health indicators — and some democratic as well as undemocratic practices. However, there is still incessant worry about safety, the rule of law, violence, fairness, equity, equal access to essential services and opportunities, and most of all for democratic rights and practices such as there were 20 years ago.

The obvious question is when will we get these issues sorted? How long do we have to wait before we see the systemic changes necessary for democratic practices to be embedded firmly in our country so that our dreams of democracy and prosperity are realised?

Note the piercing keywords ––'our' and 'we'. Have you noticed how many times I used them above? Who is 'our' or 'we'? Why have I used the words 'our' and 'we'? Do I, or more precisely do my views represent all Bangladeshis – of all persuasions, beliefs, regions, income, situations? Do I have an authority to speak on behalf of, say, the disadvantaged?

Debates are usually intertwined with different points and issues. What is good from the perspective of one group may not be acceptable with another group's interest in mind. What is good for urbanite, upwardly mobile people may not be equally good for rural people, people living in urban slums or even the less well-off urban population.

To use a Bengali adage, 'karo poush mash karo sorbonash' — what's beneficial to some is a disaster for others. This means to invoke a reform (even a micro-revolution) we need to understand that changes with perceived overall benefit are still generated by the people in positions of power. Power here is not only government, opposition, bureaucratic, administrative or political force; it could include the opinions of active groups such as the middle class or opinion makers who generate ideas as to what is good for us or what we should pursue for the betterment of the nation.

In our particular case I feel that people including me, while making suggestions, although trying to understand the views of others, are largely biased by their own social stature – which in some cases may not mean that they know what is better for others.

This is not unique to our country. In the developed west, society and opinion writers are painfully divided on issues such as taxes on carbon pollution or mining. Some think a tax to redistribute wealth is a reform, whereas other consider the abolition of such taxes is the right reform as they hinder economic growth and employment.

In most circumstances, opinion-making groups try to give authority to support their preferred position by stating that this position is evidently supported by other influential people – economists, business leaders, ministers and community leaders. Yet, just because an idea has been argued to be better does not necessarily mean its application would, in fact, be good. More often than not we would find that these 'influential people' are pushing such 'good' agenda out of sheer self-interest, in some cases with behaviour bordering on 'rent-seeking' as they would be the core beneficiaries, however they may try to dress it up.

Now apply this cynicism to the most frequently opined topics: democracy and development. With or without the aid of 'an authority', opinion writers, again me included, are frustrated by lack of progress in both. And while some opinions offer practical paths to get us there, how often do they realise that democratic practice along with development takes time – recognising that it is often a very slow, painful process, mired by myriad historical, cultural and/or ethological issues?

In the search for a rapid road to development comparisons with available models are made: Malaysia, South Korea or Singapore. But do we understand the full history in of socio-economic and political development in these countries? I don't, since I have not studied the relevant research.

China and India are also compared, with similar poverty and population, but using contrasting political governing systems. Both nations started their sovereign endeavours immediately after the Second World War.

While China gained its economic momentum by the late seventies and early eighties, albeit by squashing peoples' freedom, India's chaotic democratic process and political alliances were said to hold it back. The Westminster style of democratic system with the freedom to protest was impeding (and still frustrating) change, whether economic, political, social or legal.

But the debate is not finished, as both countries are still distant from being 'democratic and developed'. Both have social disorder, human rights violations, crony capitalism and oppression, and yet they are also alleviating poverty and 'modernising' at a phenomenal rate, endowing them with greater importance in the global economy and politics.

We are about 40-odd years into independent being. Let's refer to an incident from a country we often mention with a similar time span. In 1975 Indira Ghandi imposed an emergency shunning freedom as it was known and enjoyed in Indian democracy. The Indian and international press are currently commemorating this by articulating and analysing that dark period. Indeed, curbing people's rights by any form of government is regrettable, though it has been invoked and continues to be employed by many around the globe. Yet Indira Ghandi was back in power through the popular vote by 1980. Only a years out of power — is that all that the people thought she deserved as punishment? Was it not a bit too lenient for a grim misuse of state power?

Consider an even more dramatic proposition –– would the (British) Raj get a more popular vote, had it wished to contest our polls, than today's political options?

Given our complex history, culture and ethnology, any expectation that we could make a shortcut to 'democracy and development', under any circumstances, is misguided. If this hope has been misused by politicians, the (upwardly mobile) middle class has been misappropriating it to provoke righteous awakening.

The painful struggle towards a 'democratic and developed' country is real, and comes only through years of painful trade-offs, the fantasy-filled opinions (and the Magic Pudding) are not.

Irfan Chowdhury is an opinion columnist.