Reforms are easier said than done. While reform is generally a good idea, Mao Zedong observed, “dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly; our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly."
In post-authoritarian societies, reforms become highly demanded. However, desired reforms are not always achieved. Consider some cases from recent history and assess whether these lessons are relevant for Bangladesh.
In post-Mao China and post-Soviet Russia, reforms were introduced but had different outcomes. Leaders in post-1978 China, notably Deng Xiaoping, sought economic reforms under the communist leadership while keeping the state intact. Market-embracing economic reforms in China led to remarkable economic development.
The core of the post-Mao reforms was the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented economy. The "four modernizations"-- agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology -- became the foundation of China's development strategy.
Chinese pragmatic leadership focused on economic modernization while maintaining strict political control. Unlike the Soviet Union, China did not adopt policies akin to Glasnost.
President Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms in post-socialist Russia in the mid-1980s focused on “Glasnost,” meaning "openness," as part of a broader set of reforms known as “Perestroika” or restructuring. Glasnost aimed to increase transparency in government institutions and encourage greater freedom of expression.
Glasnost allowed for more open debate and criticism of the government. Media restrictions were relaxed, and for the first time, citizens could discuss and criticize government policies publicly. However, the transition to a multi-party, credible democracy did not follow.
In theory, the ideas were sound, but the consequences led not only to the dissolution of the Soviet Union but also to a near-collapse of society, with rampant corruption and institutional failures that eventually resulted in the rise of strongman rule, in other words, a new authoritarian system.
China and Russia represent two different approaches to reform in communist states during the late 20th century, each leading to dramatically different outcomes. China’s gradual and experimental approach to reform allowed the government to retain control and adapt policies as needed. In contrast, the Soviet Union's more abrupt and radical changes under Gorbachev led to a loss of control, contributing to the state's collapse.
Argentina presents a South American case study. Following a period of military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983, widespread social unrest and political changes ensued, especially after Argentina’s humiliating defeat in the Falkland/Malvinas War in 1982.
The war exposed the vulnerability of the Argentine military. After the fall of Argentina's military dictatorship in 1983, the country faced significant social unrest as it transitioned back to democracy. This period was marked by efforts to address human rights abuses, economic instability, and the rebuilding of democratic institutions.
During the dictatorship, tens of thousands of people had disappeared, tortured, or killed. After the return to democracy, there was significant public demand for justice.
The newly elected president, Raúl Alfonsín, established the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons, which documented the atrocities committed by the military regime. The subsequent trials of junta leaders, including the historic 1985 Trial of the Juntas, were pivotal but also sparked backlash from the military and its supporters.
Argentina’s economy was in dire straits following the dictatorship, marked by hyperinflation, debt, and economic mismanagement. Alfonsín’s government struggled to stabilize the economy, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and protests.
The economic instability culminated in the hyperinflation crisis of 1989, which led to looting, strikes, and social unrest, resulting in changes in government. Argentina is politically stable now, but its economic situation remains volatile.
In Argentina, civil society, including groups like the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, played a crucial role in keeping the memory of the dictatorship's victims alive and demanding justice. Their continued activism contributed to the social unrest.
Students played a key role in the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Both left-leaning students and pro-Islamic students fought side by side to overthrow the regime of the Shah. Following the revolution, the progressive students and leadership were marginalized, and power was concentrated in the hands of the Islamicists.
In the so-called “Arab Spring,” initial reforms in several Arab countries in response to popular uprisings either failed to address the root causes of discontent or were rolled back by authoritarian regimes. In Egypt, for example, the initial political opening led to a backlash that resulted in a return to military rule.
Well-intentioned reforms often fail to take effect due to a combination of political resistance, public opposition, institutional weaknesses, economic constraints, and other contextual factors. Successful reforms typically require careful planning, strong leadership, broad-based support, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. And they take time.
Slogans and political rhetoric are useful tools for mobilizing people but are poor substitutes for careful planning and pragmatic thinking.
Reforms under a strict timeline, capitalizing on blame games, and replicating the playbook of the fallen regime may generate some euphoric hope in the short term, but the long term is a different story.
Long-term reform requires a new social contract. A genuine social contract must be inclusive and based on truth and justice.
Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist and columnist.