Government’s First Six Months, CPD’s Dialogue and Some Questions

Under the headline “There Are Indications, But No Symphony,” Daily Jugantor published a report last Monday that immediately caught my attention.

It covered a dialogue organised by the private research organisation Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) at its Dhanmondi office to assess the performance of the government during its first six months.

CPD, founded by renowned economist Dr. Rehman Sobhan, has long been conducting such assessments under successive governments.

At this dialogue, presentations were made by CPD Distinguished Fellow Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya, Dr Mustafizur Rahman and Additional Research Director Toufiq-ul-Islam Khan.

However, most of the newspaper report focused on Dr Debapriya’s observations.

Six months is hardly sufficient to make a definitive assessment of a new government.

More time must be allowed. We must be patient. A crop does not grow immediately after seeds are sown.

Ordinary people understand this simple truth. Yet the morning can provide some indication of how the day may unfold.

In developed countries, governments may change, but financial institutions, the judiciary, administration, newspapers and the media continue to perform their respective responsibilities according to established rules. If problems arise, laws and institutions exist to address them.

The situation in countries like ours is different. Here, individuals are often placed above institutions, and state activities tend to revolve around the wishes and preferences of powerful individuals. Have we really seen any lasting exception to this practice?

An example can be found in the CPD report itself. Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya reportedly said that the Prime Minister is more popular than the government.

This observation seems unnecessary. He knows very well that Bangladesh has a parliamentary system of government and that the Prime Minister is the principal leader enjoying the confidence of the elected representatives.

As head of the executive, it is quite natural for the Prime Minister to have greater public visibility and popularity.

The Prime Minister also bears the political responsibility for keeping the government popular and giving priority to fulfilling its electoral commitments.

So, why the government and the Prime Minister be presented as two separate entities when they are constitutionally and politically interconnected? I do not believe the observation was intended as flattery, but the reason for making such a distinction remains unclear.

Dr. Debapriya then connected popularity with administrative competence. He argued that the important question is how effectively the Prime Minister can use his popularity to manage his party, bureaucracy and government.

Our question is simple: What is the necessary relationship between popularity and competence? A popular leader is not necessarily competent, while a competent leader need not be popular.

Plato’s famous analogy is relevant here: when a ship is caught in a storm, what matters is the skill and experience of the sailor, not his popularity.

Let us return to the principal issue of the dialogue. Dr. Debapriya identified coordination among ministers, state ministers, advisers and special assistants within the government’s large organisational structure as a major challenge.

He then expressed disappointment by saying, “We see indications in different sectors, but we do not see the symphony.”

But how can one expect a symphony immediately? A symphony requires the coordination of composers, musicians and performers.

Rhythm, melody and timing must come together before the audience can hear harmonious music. That requires rehearsal and, above all, time.

The circumstances facing the present government are hardly favourable.

Democracy is, by its very nature, slower and more deliberative than authoritarian rule. For years, authoritarian governance weighed heavily on the people.

The students and citizens paid a heavy price to break free from that situation.

Meanwhile, the national economy is passing through a difficult period.

The crisis must be overcome through collective intelligence, institutional cooperation and sound policy.

Instead of merely pointing out the absence of “symphony,” respected institutions such as CPD should clearly identify where the government lacks capacity, where coordination is failing and where political foresight is inadequate.

That would make their criticism more constructive and valuable.

CPD has always played an important role in generating ideas and policy recommendations. It has done so under governments of different political orientations.

It has now suggested a phased implementation of the salary structure for employees of the interim government and proposed a 20–25 per cent cost-of-living allowance.

At the same time, CPD has warned of serious economic difficulties. Against the government’s revenue collection target of Tk 695,000 crore, it estimates a possible shortfall of around Tk 140,000 crore. The growth of total tax revenue has reportedly fallen from 12.3 per cent to 4.9 per cent.

The government’s dependence on bank borrowing has increased, while net foreign assistance is declining.

The industrial sector is also under pressure. During the past six months, 95 factories in Gazipur, Savar, Narayanganj and Narsingdi have reportedly closed, leaving around 62,000 people unemployed. Industrial production growth has fallen from 3.4 per cent to zero.

In such circumstances, the government may not have been able to increase public servants’ salaries and allowances. But at least they have not been compelled to lose their jobs. This distinction is also worth recognising.

The fundamental question is: when national institutions are weak, rules and regulations are poorly enforced and the international environment is unfavourable, how much can leadership accomplish within six months? Does the leadership possess Aladdin’s magic lamp?

People naturally had high expectations from the government. Dr. Debapriya identified two major ones: economic recovery and good governance.

These are certainly legitimate expectations, but they should be viewed as long-term objectives rather than immediate achievements.

Economic recovery is necessarily a time-consuming process. Restoring an economy weakened by years of distortion, irregularities and poor governance requires carefully designed programmes and sustained implementation.

Similarly, reforming education, healthcare and other public-interest institutions cannot be accomplished overnight.

Successful reforms often begin with limited, practical examples and are then expanded on the basis of experience.

A person learns through experience; a nation does the same. Long-standing injustice, corruption, irregularities and institutional weaknesses cannot disappear overnight. Institutional purification and reform require time, determination and continuity.

Therefore, the government should certainly be evaluated, questioned and held accountable.

Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy. But six months should be regarded as the beginning of a journey, not its final destination.

A symphony cannot be produced simply by demanding music from the orchestra.

The musicians must first learn to play together, rehearse patiently and gradually achieve harmony.

The government deserves scrutiny—but it also deserves sufficient time to turn the indications into a symphony.

(The author is a researcher and political analyst)