Banner Advertise

Sunday, June 19, 2011

[chottala.com] Hartal: Hateful act rendered to afflict loss



 
No NonsenseHartal: Hateful act rendered to afflict loss
Abdullah A Dewan
  The title says it all. The word "hartal" is construed here as an acronym for "Hateful Act Rendered To Afflict Loss". In fact, UNDP estimates claim that hartals account for approximately 3 percent GDP loss annually – evidently not counting the all-enveloping social costs.

Forcible observance of hartal is nothing new in Bangladesh. With the restoration of democracy in 1990 the frequency of hartal — contrary to people's expectations — has increased steadily for the worse. Between 1999 and 2002, nearly 332 incidences of hartals were recorded. During the BNP's rule (2002—2006) the Bangladesh Awami League called 270 hartals. It seems democracy – instead of fostering civility in politics — facilitated incivility and incidences of hartal.

As a columnist, my first article "The political economy of hartals" was published in The Daily Star and The Financial Express on 25 and 26 March, 2005 respectively. The piece was written on a hartal day when I was visiting my sister in Comilla town.The article delved into all-encompassing adverse fallouts from hartals and lockouts.

Six years have since passed; hartal is still alive with all its vigour and still brazenly imposed as a tool of last resort by its sponsors whilst the government's tactics to subdue it — as being unreasonable and frivolous — has not changed a bit. The police are still being deployed to crush hartal with the same ferocity — committing brutalities and indiscriminate arrests – differences being the protestors and politicians who now get beaten. Rounding up criminals for destroying lives and properties is absolutely a law enforcement prerogative while police brutalities are indefensible — a violation of human rights.

Everyone including the hartal callers would agree that hartal is harmful – ceasing most economic activities in cities and markets – one that's tantamount to calling for an "economic boycott" as I see — one that perpetrates a permanent loss of goods and services from the economic stream. A stronger characterisation would be to call hartal a self-inflicted act of economic terrorism. Opposition politicians still call for hartal as a last resort when their simmering frustrations with what they claim as legitimate demands and democratic rights are ignored or mocked by the politicians in power.

Two of the main reasons for calling successive hartals by the main opposition party BNP within the span of one week — (5 June and 12 June) — are to protest against price spirals and dismantling the constitutional provision of the caretaker government (CG). The BNP has now piled up another reason to call for non-stop hartal against what it claims blanket arrests of its leaders and activists.

People should ask these prima donnas what they would do differently about price spirals. Actually, they've nothing to offer — absolutely nothing at all unless they have evidence of the operations of domestic price fixing syndicates or external conspiracies blocking free flow of goods to Bangladesh.

Prices of goods and services are market determined driven by the forces of supply and demand both of which are functions of domestic and global production and consumption. So, calling hartal against price spirals is wholly unjustified and nonsensical. Imposing hartal only aggravates inflationary pressure further through loss of production and hindering the supply chain.

BNP's most compelling reason for imposing hatral is against dismantling the provision of the caretaker government (CG) — first raised by the AL and then judged unconstitutional by higher court with an opinion that it can continue for two more terms subject to approval by parliament. The AL decided to implement the ruling before the 2013 national election while disregarding the justices' opinion for extending the CG provision for two more terms.

One may perceptibly ask what the justices were thinking in concocting the opinion for two term extension. May be they wanted the political parties to prepare a slow transition to conducting the national election under an elected government. But if the CG provision is unconstitutional how can you allow its continuation even if parliament approves it. Didn't the CG provision passed by parliament as an amendment to the constitution to begin with? If it is already unconstitutional, how does it become constitutional if it is approved by a different parliament a second time around?

Another "no nonsense" question is which constitutional provision empowered the justices to pass opinion for two term extension. No courts can make laws; they interpret the spirit of the laws embodied in the constitution. Since the CG provision is judged unconstitutional, what about the legality of all the governments elected under the CG provision since its inception?

Khaleda Zia's 16 June assertion that the CG provision is a settled issue is archaic in its essence – nothing is a settled issue in a constantly evolving outlook and ideas. Her rejection of electronic voting machine is backward bending — and is a manifestation of technology ignorant mindset — one that rejects simplicity and sophistication.

Considering the country's political division – and having only about 35% voters as solid the AL leaning – the BNP's demand to hold the next national election under the CG provision and strengthening the EC are quite reasonable and the only way forward. Like it or not, it is the responsibility of the party in power to find common grounds for reconciliation. The AL-led government is inviting the BNP for a dialogue on one hand while at the same time taunting its leaders with slurs and personal attack.

As I highlighted in another piece, several weeks ago one regular reader of my column posited four hypothetical questions and asked for my comments. He wanted to know which of the following is most threatening to the country's future.

l Religious extremists and terrorism;

l Increasing Indian influence in the country's affairs;

l Allowing transit and seaport facilties to neighboring countries;

l Confrontational politics and political corruption.

I choose the last one as my no nonsense answer –believe it or not. I argued that religious extremism will fade away over time with academic curriculum diversification. Indian influences are unavoidable as are American influences in Canada, Mexico and other South American Countries. Road and seaport access to neighboring countries will open up the economy for the better and add foreign currencies to the exchequer.

I reasoned that political corruption is a serious drag on the economy if the illegally accumulated wealth is transferred to foreign countries instead of reinvesting or spending in the domestic economy. Confrontational politics is the most debilitating of all both politically and economically while socially – poisoning interpersonal relationships and civil discourses even among the least politically active citizenry.

The writer, formerly a BAEC Physicist and Nuclear Engineer, is a Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.
 
 


__._,_.___


[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___