One of my late political science professors would tease us “small government” conservatives by pointing out -- unfortunately, with quite a bit of accuracy -- that, in crises, everyone is an economic “socialist” in that the usual philosophical objections to government involvement in the economy become harder to find even among the avatars of the Chicago School approach to a national economy.
The learned professor would have gleefully pointed out to us free market folks how today, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated economic slowdown, his wisdom continues to stand the test of time.
Across the planet and across political divides in every country, the question is not about the absolute need for a government intervention in the economy, but merely that of the method and means. The most doctrinaire apostles of laissez-faire on America’s political right are busy spinning “contexts” to explain away their sudden advocacy of massive bailouts on the shoulders of the tax-payers and external creditors; the same is the case in those First World democracies where free market forces have become a political powerhouse over the last three decades.
By all indications, it is inevitable that by this time next year, almost every country would have expended billions underwritten by its public treasury in some combination of stimulus, direct assistance, and business subsidies on account of the economic downturn triggered by the pandemic.
But how do we know that money is not being pilfered by all sorts of nefarious actors in business, bureaucracy, and politics?
The ancient adage that money is the root of all evil may be a tad overused by moralizers, but it is quite plain that the sudden flow of lots of public money amidst the chaos of an emergency brings out the innate human desire for personal enrichment for too many mortals.
Human history -- from the end of the Roman republic to the Iraqi reconstruction -- is full of it. Fortunately, for most representative democracies, strong oversight institutions in the legislature, independent audit mechanisms, and a robust free press act as checks, albeit not foolproof ones, on the avarice of the wicked.
In the UK and Canada, the powerful parliamentary committees on public accounts are headed statutorily by opposition members and act as zealous watchdogs of the common weal. In the United States, even as the president continues to thwart independent agency oversight, the House of Representatives and Congress’s general accounting office keep an eye on public expenditures considered out of the ordinary, as does a press which is freer than its counterpart in any other country.
Even India, despite the recent turn towards authoritarian and ethno-religious tendencies, has a press that often asks very tough questions without journalists fearing getting “disappeared” in white vans or locked up without trial for writing less than sycophantic pieces about local district commissioners.
Who is going to be doing that crucial job of a watchdog in Bangladesh as the government prepares to unleash a post-pandemic stimulus package which is rumoured to be the in the billions?
In realistic terms, nobody really knows the answer to that question. With a parliament whose composition was pre-ordained long before the very first ballot was deemed to be cast, and a mass media which has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it in the form of the Digital Security Act, Bangladesh simply doesn’t have the traditional tools of public accountability that democracies take for granted.
Are there, then, any non-traditional tools of scrutiny that can step in to at least partially fill the void? Brave citizen journalists armed with anonymity, social media accounts, VPN access, and their mobile phones should certainly be part of the answer; after all, it is their money in the literal sense. Internationally affiliated NGOs working in Bangladesh are also great candidates for this role since they have both the expertise in maximizing the return on social investment and the veneer of protection that comes with association with big brands like Transparency, Oxfam, CARE, SIDA, CIDA, Democracy International, and so on.
Last, but not least, development partners like global retail giants, the World Bank group, and bilateral donors who are providing, underwriting, or guaranteeing any part of a financial relief pipeline to Bangladesh, also have an obligation to see that their resources are not being expended on anything other than legitimate social and public infrastructure needs.
The average human being is not the devil, but he isn’t an angel either. Tempting this mortal being with the possibility of lots of unearned money without any questions asked is a recipe for many outcomes that are unsavoury.
Common sense dictates Bangladesh should not tempt that fate again; we have already been asked, in a previous generation: “Who pilfered the blankets?” A stimulus for economic recovery should not be a stimulus to personal corruption.
Esam Sohail is a college administrator and lecturer of social sciences. He writes from Kansas, USA. He can be reached at [email protected].
