There are very few things that politicians of different creeds agree on, with the exception of rising to, being in, and clinging on to power. It is tempting to think that gold dust of this variety is an urban myth that is the product of black humour. However, whether it is disingenuous or not, all politicians are quick to espouse the virtues of education and commit to working for it.
On the rare days when there are no crises in the Middle East or Third World retrogression and devastation to report, child labour and its inverse relation with education is highlighted, as the human rights stories that intersperse reportage of the meaningless noises made by politicians.
The subject is reflexively associated with the developmentally challenged world. Therefore, when a recent news item on the topic emerged in relation to the US instead of Bangladesh, most would have been forgiven for dismissing it as a hoax. It could not be true that the laws of the country that the world aspires to allow those aged 12 and over to work unlimited hours on farms, so long as there is no conflict with school.
The glee of prospective employers may have been cut short by the developed world rationale of education, but it has not kept them from subjecting children to the rigours and dangers of working on tobacco farms. It ought not be true that the US allows child cruelty of a variety that other tobacco-producing nations, including Brazil and India who are yet to dine at the head table of the developed world, do not allow. Sadly, it is.
As with all menial labour, those subjected to this are largely immigrants or children of migrant workers, groups amongst whom education is overridden by financial needs. It is the same logic that prevails in Bangladesh, where 12.8% of children between the ages of five and 14 are child labourers due to circumstances.
The national average rises to 19.1% in slums and underprivileged areas, and 17.6% in tribal areas. Education is not a viable alternative to work for the poverty-stricken because, firstly, there is a fiscal detriment instead of an immediate monetary benefit, and, secondly, education does not necessarily guarantee an improvement in the standard of living in the long-term.
In fact, in many cases, such as farm work, the loss of experience in choosing education over work sets the individuals back. The realities in a country like Bangladesh make it difficult to make the case for education according to Western standards in an optimistic and encouraging manner, much less a compelling one.
The ever-widening gap in equality and class divide make a broader interpretation of the American tobacco farming model more likely to be applicable nationwide than any substantial leaps being made in relation to education.
The government has repeatedly committed significant portions of the budget to education – 14.5% of a smaller budget in 2007-2008, 13.1% of a larger one in 2014-2015, with a similar percentage in the intervening years. Overlooking the rampant corruption that exists, and always has, and the use of such sums relative to the prevalent problem of lack of education, compounded by overpopulation, does not solve all the budgetary issues.
The small print reveals that the allocation is for education and technology, not the former alone. The ruling party announced Digital Bangladesh as one of the key promises of its Vision 2021 document. Greater access to computer technology, in the hopes that increased technological transparency and literacy would help proliferate education, greater healthcare, and human rights, while making it more difficult to get away with corruption, would be ensured by broad policy changes that were, and have remained, ambiguous.
In contrast, a detailed policy paper published in 2009 outlined recommendations and goals for Digital Britain. While it too was overly ambitious, with the enhancements of the Digital Economy Act 2010 that stemmed from the policy counteracted by the inability to achieve 100% internet proliferation and other failures, the report was largely plausible.
Moreover, owing to its status, there is no obligation for any government to implement it, even partially. Digital Bangladesh, on the other hand, is an election manifesto promise that needs to be delivered on if the government is to be judged as a success.
Rather than examining technological capabilities and exploring future potential based on that, it places demands on the government. Tethering the fulfilment of those demands to the plight of education is disastrous, and potentially fatal, for both. One wonders where that will leave the government.
