"Reduction of Poverty and the Poverty Line Defined"

'Development' is the word that we love to hear for both individual and national perspective. It has reduced people's suffering and has given us a prosperous society. Thus, we are living in a world of unprecedented opulence, which could not possibly be imagined even a century ago. There have been remarkable changes in the life style of mankind; thanks to the revolutionary developments in science, technology and governance. We have overcome the distance barriers among the continents, established democratic governments and increased international trading. But it could not be said that through these developments we have eliminated deprivations and poverty from the world. Poverty still persists and in fact more than 1.2 billion people still live below the defined poverty line. As poverty persists, it also plays an important role in policy makings, adopting strategies and politics of the world. Thus poverty reduction has become a prevailing rhetoric in the realm of politics around the world. So, from time to time, we get to see the reports of poverty reduction in the mass media. It can also be seen politicians are claiming quite often that they have or their political parties have reduced, if not extirpated, poverty to a great extent. Following this trend, it was not odd of hear from our Bangladeshi finance minister recently claiming they have reduced poverty of the country roughly from 48% to 30%. When it appears to be good news for all Bangladeshis but there are some internal issues that require some explanations.

Although it appears people know when to use the word 'poverty' in our daily life but it is not something easy to define. Normally poverty is defined as a denial of choices and opportunities and a violation of human dignity. Otherwise lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in the society which can mean unemployment or not having enough to feed, lack of access to education, clinics, clean water and sanitation etc.  Nonetheless, it is measured by income of a person. If a person earns less than $1.25 a day then he is living in extreme poverty. This $1.25 figure was adopted in 2008 according to the new provisional estimates in 2005 to accommodate inflation with 1996 $1.00 figure. It is estimated that the proportion of people in the developing world living on less than $1.25 a day was 20.6 percent in 2010, down from 43.1 percent in 1990 and 52.2 percent in 1981. That is, 1.22 billion people lived on less than $1.25 a day in 2010, compared with 1.91 billion in 1990, and 1.94 billion in 1981.

Now if we measure poverty by personal income then as the previous paragraph shows we have reduced world poverty by at least 20% in the last two decades. But poverty is not all about income rather it is fundamentally about capability of a person. Definitely, you might think that increased income of a person offers him more capabilities than what he had in lower income. It is easy to picture only if the cost of everything remains static against your increased income. However, for example, costs or prices of daily commodities are not constant. They are also increasing in majority of the cases which makes it inevitable to increase your income even to hold on to the same financial capabilities. If your income stays static against increasing commodity price then you are losing your capabilities. Now, someone's condition will only improve if his rate of increasing income is higher than the rate of increasing commodity price.

It is crucial to ask yourself whether you can buy a product for $1.25 today which used to cost $1.00 in 1996. I dare to expect ‘yes’ answer from you as most of the products will cost you two or three folds today than the cost was in 1996. In case you want to say ‘yes’, then it is easy to prove you wrong. For example- recent financial report in Bangladesh shows the inflation rate of the country is about 7.5%, which means value of money is decreasing by 7.5% each year. This inflation rate, on average, had been same over the last 20 years. When inflation rate is 7.5% the value of money halves every 9.5 years that means Bangladeshis need to earn more than double the amount they earn today within next 10years just to adjust with inflation rate or staying in the similar economic position. As I mentioned the inflation rate has been similar throughout the last 20years, the people of Bangladesh have to earn at four times today than the amount they used to earn 20years ago. Otherwise their economic position has worsened. Fortunately, many people do earn more than 4 times nowadays than what they used to 20 years ago but the claim that they have reduced poverty by 20% within the last decade is questionable, and might be quixotic.

However, the inflation rate for dollar is roughly 3% a year, which means every 23 years the value of dollar halves ($2 instead of $1). It's been 17 years since 1996 $1 poverty line and we just adjusted it to $1.25 what should have been at least $1.70 today. This gap in adjustment allows many people being excluded from the poverty list and consequently quixotic reduction of poverty in the world. If we were to calculate poverty by using $1.70 income scale then millions more might fall into the poverty line that are otherwise excluded today by using $1.25 scale. 

"Constitutional Deficiency and the Current Political Crisis in Bangladesh"

Problems of Election Commission and Election time Care-taker Government System mainly derived from recent changes in our constitution. Though the changes are recent these sorts of problems are in no sense new for the people of Bangladesh. They have suffered from same sorts of political discords and confrontation in last 20years. Those problems or discords were dispatched with momentary solutions than looking for a long term solution of this problem every time they arose. As a result they kept popping out every now and then.

The main problem here is- how we change our constitution. We saw BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) was changing constitution during their tenure without any participation of another major political party, AL (Awami League). As a result, what we have noticed, AL once they are in power started changing those part of the constitution that were created or amended without their voices being heard. However, this went further; AL did not just stop in amending those parts of the constitution they again went on to change the way we hold our general election in this country. I would not go no asking about ALs intention in doing so neither I am going to assume their intention from these acts. But I would like to analyse the current political deadlock.

As AL formed the government with more than two third of the seats in the parliament they can almost do whatever they want to do in the parliament legally but not necessarily legitimately. Now, we know parliament is the place where all the bills are debated and eventually passed by the members of the parliament (MPs). Most of the bills are passed in the parliament only with two-third majority and when the ruling government have more than two-thirds of all the seats in the parliament they can legislate virtually anything. There is no way of stopping them unless their own party members vote against the bill. Unfortunately it is very unlikely to happen when a member of a political party is going to contradict party mandate or the bill that has been presented in front of the parliament to pass as laws, because a member of a political party is barred from voting against the party mandate. If anyone wishes to do so he could immediately lose his membership from the party. Due to this, once a bill is introduced by the government that bill is scarcely denied approval in the parliament even when the other members of the parliament voted against it. MPs from other parties have right to vote but their votes may eventually go in vain. As a result we have seen most of the MPs from other political parties except AL abstained themselves from joining the debate sessions in the parliament. They knew their opinion will be insignificant and, if needed, will be overridden by the ruling AL government. Thus we have noticed how incompetent the parliament had been throughout the last five years. Two third majority of AL in the parliament has galvanised its effectiveness. When it should be playing a role of checks and balance of the government law making rather it became a means of institutionalizing the wishes of the government by passing laws without any debate.

The same things happen when it comes to amending the constitution. Our constitution simply requires two-third majority votes from all the members of the parliament to be amended (Article 142(a)(ii)); and AL took this opportunity to implement their desired changes in the constitution. They have altered the way we hold elections in this country. They have abolished the impartial or non-party election time care-taker government system. The main opposition party BNP did not have enough voice in amending and a result we have been witnessing a strong demand for a care-taker government whereas the ruling AL have kept on rejecting their demand.

As the day of the vote-casting is getting closer the demand from BNP is also getting stronger. Consequently, we have seen strikes, shut-downs and spar of violent clashes, where many innocent civilians have lost their lives and many more have been injured. The miseries of those who have been injured without any fault from their part, of the family members of those who have lost their lives and above all of the people of this country have no bounds. I have even lost words to describe these sufferings of people. I could not help asking what their mistake that justify them suffering this way? They did not have any direct voice in amending the alleged part of the constitution neither they directly approved that. The only fault that I could think of from their part is that they have elected a party to form a government and that government eventually went on to change the constitution.

To be precise, the fault is subtle than this. Practically, they have allowed a party to form government with more than two-third majority in the parliament. In a sense, the civilians have given ruling AL indefeasible power to make laws and amend constitution. As a result, it appears the grieved political party BNP is making the civilians pay for their deed (voting AL). The question we should ask- whether their faults (if there is any at all) are so grave that would justify making them pay this way?

While you are thinking about that, you should also be thinking about the more important question of how we can prevent similar types of situation from arising in future. I would like to put forward some of my opinions regarding that process of avoiding. Firstly if we can build another major political party, not like the current political parties who go on forming coalition to secure their existence, which might be able to ensure that no political party will be able to form a government with two-third majority in the parliament. This will be an indirect check against reoccurring similar political deadlock because it can reasonably be expected that three major political parties will be fighting heart and soul to get mere majority against each other to be able to form a government. However, without any doubt, it will not be possible for a political party to become a major one over night. It will take at least a decade or more for a political party to be in the same political ground as AL and BNP. And the path will not be easy going when there is no good democratic practice as the current major parties might try their best to resist up-rise of another competitor.

Another possible solution can be further amendment of the constitution. But this time it will be for good reasons. We have to add a mechanism so that no political party can change our constitution without following a specific procedure that will ensure voice of all political parties and so do people of Bangladesh.

Third way of resisting this from happening- would be adding a way of referendum in the constitution so that when any political party or government wants to change or amend constitution they would have to seek permission from people of the country before they can pass that through the parliament. Referendum has long existence in many democratic countries and it would not necessarily involve another general election. It could simply the civil society members and constitutional experts who hold good knowledge of benefits and consequences from the changes about to bring.

Last two mechanisms are depended on the whim of political parties as they would involve amending the constitution and no-one but the political party in power or government can only change the constitution. But for the sake of the people of Bangladesh, political parties should do this so that they themselves don’t become victims of each other’s political whims. AL should have learned from the tenure of BNP’s previous tenure when they changed the constitution without their attendance and should have incorporated a mechanism in the constitution to prevent that happening again. Sadly for the people of Bangladesh who have elected them, they haven’t done so and instead they followed the same path as BNP did which turned politics into violence. AL should have realized if they lose the battle in the upcoming general election there is no guarantee that changes will not be turned over and against their interest. From their approach it appears if the changes are made in the constitution by another government after general election they will also take the path of violence and bloodshed to undo the changes as BNP has adopted at this moment. Nothing will happen to them only the innocents to die!