I had been following the Grameen Bank (GB) incident in Bangladesh for some time now, and it seems since the High Court Division (HCD) decision to refuse Dr. Yunus's writ there is very little news on this issue (it might have something to do with the heat of Cricket WC). It was expected, as a nation we (Bangladeshis) are hot headed, we jump before we look, most of the time we don't know what happened, in fact we don't care, but we have to make some noise where we can.
Couple of things were very interesting (in the sense of the probably apocryphal Chinese curse, 'May you live in interesting times') in this whole Yunus scandal. I have come to view and read a large number of youtube videos, news articles (including original Norwegian reports, from their website ofcourse) and comments in social website network about Dr. Yunus being, on one hand a culprit and on the other a victim by the current political regime. But what seemed lacking in all these comments, videos and blogs was an objective look. I myself had commented on several links in the social web facebook about the legality of the removal of Dr. Yunus as MD of GB. But in this particular blog my intention is to put all the scattered thoughts into one single place. There are two different issues that need to be considered in this particularly stigmatic event, namely legal and policy.
From the legal point of view the decision to remove Dr. Yunus from the GB was not an illegal one, provided he was given a chance to 'show cause' as to why he should not be removed? It is because, firstly, Article 14 (1) of the Grameen Bank Ordinance 1983 (GBO) as amended by the Grameen Bank (Amendment) Act 1999, an MD of the GB is to be appointed with prior approval of the Bangladesh Bank (BB). Here it was clear that since 2000 there was no approval.
Article 8(2) and Article 11(1) read together gives BB a discretion to remove any Director of the GB, if s/he does not conduct his affairs in a manner (this ofcourse means in dealing with the Bank) which is suitable to the Public Interest (PI) of Bangladesh. Evidence against Dr. Yunus shows his PI factor, and under these circumstance BB had the power, under section 29 of the Micro-credit Regulatory Authority Act 2006, to remove him.
In addition to that Dr. Yunus (or any public servant for that matter) is not allowed to hold a office of the republic (an MD of a Bank is considered a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code read with section 110 of the Bank Companies Act 1991) above the age of 60. In this particular circumstance Dr. Yunus was almost 71. This explains why he was not given permission by BB, since 2000 to hold the office of MD of the Grameen Bank.
So, from legal point of view all Dr. Yunus could do was to bring an action in writ of cerciorari, which he did and failed. It seemed interesting to me that some of the people spoken up (some were even lawyers) for him expressed their 'fear' that HCD might not be impartial in this particular case. Well, a writ is a mechanism of Judicial Review. In principle the HCD does not have the authority to substitute the decision of the lower court in a writ proceeding, all it can do is examine whether the alleged decision was taken within the limits of legal boundaries. In this case it seemed so, hence the failure of Dr. Yunus.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that even if Dr. Yunus succeded in the writ, HCD would have only quashed the decision of BB removing Dr. Yunus and set a parameter within which that decision should have been taken. But the original decision still was to be taken by BB.
Secondly, everyone seemed excepting HCD to give a judgment in favor of Dr. Yunus, but when it didn't they were so upset! Why was that? So it made me think, it might have something to do with the fact that Bangladesh being the 'crown jewels' of corruption for so long that, no one expected HCD can give an honest judgment (with due respect to HCD).
From the policy point, it seems Bangladesh Government still has some damage control to do. It should not be forgotten that Dr. Yunus is a Noble laureate. It gives him a particular image to the world community. Government could have handled the matter more discreetly, but they didn't, proving once again everything is possible in this land! But the entire fault cannot be labeled to the government alone either, Dr. Yunus should have been more discreet himself, about the legal proceedings and his other affairs, I mean his bad management stories are not all untrue! (in this particular issue it seems Dr. Yunus gets confused too often and fortunately this is not his first time). Humility, in this case could have served well, both him and the country. Well, some might argue, had he thought about the welfare of the country, he would not have done what he did in the first place.
Secondly, the failure of GB and the micro-credit industry in Bangladesh doesn't seem like a stand alone failure of the Grameen Bank and Dr. Yunus, but of the government as well. I mean, government has enacted several completely separate legislation to control and regulate the cash flow in the micro-credit sector and yet they let this to happen. In addition, the concept of micro-credit may seem very attractive in theory but in practice it is not, and extremely difficult (if not impossible) to implement. In addition to regulating the credit flow, government should have taken policies to create a better market for the micro-credit entrepreneurs. It doesn't take a genius to see all those vulnerable people with no idea of what business world is like, will not stand a chance in the competition. They are poor people with no food, house, clothing or education and has everything to loose. They can't compete with brutal, unprofessional business practices in Bangladesh, whose roots are buried deep in corruption and syndicate business mechanism. Government needed to create a special sector, develop a special market for this class of people. I am no economist, but I would say Micro-credit in Bangladesh has been designed as a business sector, instead of a development sector.
Finally, this whole issue of misappropriation of money took place in early 90's, after that two political government came and gone and two caretaker governments, and no one 'noticed' a thing! It was not until a foreign film maker decides to make a film of our small, stupid, selfish and corrupted country, that our eyes open. This shows, how futile all our control mechanisms are. Micro-credit in Bangladesh is not a failure for Dr. Yunus or Grameen Bank alone, its a failure for us all as an individual, as a nation and as a country.
No comments:
Post a Comment