What's new

Hasina signed her resignation yesterday

Not all monarchies and autocracies become rich.

But no democracy EVER become rich.

Roman republic was at its most prosperous during the rule of dictator Augustus.

France abandoned democracy and appointed Napoleon a dictator.

To respond to your "no democracy EVER become rich" - may be or may be not. There are some countries like Brazil who moved towards democracy in 1985. It is still not rich, but surely counts as one of the rising economies in the world.

Doesn't matter what kind of system we have in Bangladesh. Since there is no accountability for the leaders and elites, there won't be any sustainable economic growth for Bangladesh.

The judiciary system is not impartial. People can get away with looting money only if they have the blessing of the supreme leader. This describes a toxic society which will drive out its best and the brightest, and leave the unfortunate at the mercy of the scums of the earth.

If you are so confident of the success of this regime, I implore you to live and work in Bangladesh for 3 months. Then provide us a dissertation on how much progress has been made in Bangladesh.
 
What was your question?



How can a slave owing society be considered democratic? Are you insane!!!???

And Britain was a functioning monarchy during the reign of queen victoria. Parliament was advisory only. She had veto power.

If you think Victorian Britain was democratic, let’s make Hasina queen with veto power 🤣🤣🤣
.

You need to specify your barometer of what you consider to be a democracy. Democratic empires have existed since athens and rome to UK and France to US by restricting the democratic franchise to a few. But they are still considered democracies.

No dude... parliament is sovereign in UK... the monarch has veto power theoretically...never been tested and if it ever came to it, parliament will win.

If dictatorial regimes and/or monarchy were always success story as you are trying to argue, Africa as a continent would now be the richest in the world given the amount of natural resources is available in that continent. We would see Europeans flocking to Africa to work, not the other way around.

You are citing UK, France, US, Holland and Japan as examples for success of autocracy. You need to take the historical contexts behind those examples. What you are not taking into account is that all these nations had imperialistic agenda. They needed to grow their empire through force. And force is derived through economic power. Even though US had democracy albeit imperfect, it inherited the imperialistic mentality from Europe. Japan was never colonized by the west because it had always been a colonizer itself,

If you are to compare Bangladeshi autocracy story with other countries, you need to pick post-WW2 economies.

Let's look at some of the stories from Asia and also their background -

**I will not take city states/territories like Singapore and Hong Kong into account when comparing with a country with large population like Bangladesh.
**I am taking GDP per capita as a measure to simplify the comparison.

1. South Korea - Economically very successful at per capita GDP of 34,994. However, let's not forget they have an active enemy to the north. So even though the South Korean dictators were corrupt, they had to ensure the country is economically sound to fight the North Koreans. The Samsungs and all other Korean rich business families benefitted from the corrupt system. The society suffers from income inequality.
US did assist ROK with billions for years after the Korea war which built the foundation for what Korea is now. Does Bangladesh have such rich and powerful sponsor?

2. Indonesia - Now they are growing and moderately successful at per capita GDP of 4,691. Indonesia became independent on 1945, way before Bangladesh. Indonesia has natural resources and tourism, and yet their GDP per capita is little above Bangladesh. If dictatorship was so great, why isn't Indonesia in the mid-10K per capita GDP by now?

3. Vietnam - Growing and moderately successful at per capita GDP of 4,122. One party style government similar to China.

4. Myanmar - Still developing, with GDP per capita at 1,285. Myanmar received independence in 1948. It had been under military junta for the most part since 1960s. We clearly seeing their development aren't we?

The notion that dictatorship is the best way to economically succeed is absolutely wrong. A corrupt dictatorship is no better than a corrupt democracy.

I will agree that a benevolent and just dictatorship will be more effective than any democracy. But, the Sheikh Hasina government does not fall in that category. The corruption is rampant. There is literally robbery going on with government funds. This cannot sustain in the long run.

I have been to Bangladesh this year after many years, and apart from some fancy roads and bridges, not much have changed. It still took me 3 hours to go from one end of Dhaka to the other. The power outage wasn't there when I visited, but now I hear it's back again because of Bangladesh's reliance on fuel powered plants.

14 years is a long time to fix these basic necessities. The fact that these haven't been fixed yet, means its time for Hasina to step down. But unfortunately, there won't be any peaceful power transition. I was in Dhaka when the last time people were getting burnt or being beaten to death with wooden boat paddles, until the army stepped in and arrested both the bibis. It will be the same again this time if not worse.
Very well argued..
 
S Korea is a democratic country and no more wealth divide than that of the UK.

Hong Kong we cannot really use as China took it over in 1997.

Taiwan is similar to S. Korea.

Facts are that democracy simply does not work for 3rd world countries to develop as has been seen since WW2.

Your example of one government following another one after it takes over in order to conclude long time-scale infrastructure projects like nuclear does not work in practice as 3rd world countries do not have a mature political system. It even to some extent happens in Western democracies as they are just looking to get re-elected and so sometimes do not think more than 5 years into the future.

We need to admit that a lot of what is happening and will happen in BD was due to AL being in power since 2009 as they have been able to plan for the long term and other countries like Russia have gottten involved in expensive and long time-scale infrastructure projects due to political certainty.

I for one am not prepared to take a risk of the stability and certain economic growth in return for a maybe of better alternative that has a very low chance of happening.

Let Hasina rule till 2029 and then bow out after making BD a "middle-income" and decently educated state. It will then be on "auto-drive" and whoever takes over cannot mess things up.
Look I understand your position and you are free to hold any views.

However you have to understand illegitimate rule by BAL is not without cost. Ledgers always has two sides.

People are dying in numbers, government coffers are being systematically looted, worse still government banks are being forced to gear themselves up and provide loans to BAL cronies knowing full well that money is leaving BD and will never be paid back.

At some point cost benefit calculation decisively tilts away from BAL. You need to view the situation holistically, however even viewing it purely from the prism of economic development at some point its unteanable.

As I have been harping on the greatest danger for BD lies in the skaky foundation of our banking sector. Our institutions are carrying massive bad debts caused by BAL thieves and there is no palatable way to solve this. GoB can not take it on or write it off as our tax collection is so small and you can not finance this by additional borrowing.

BD in my view can not afford BAL up to 2029. Future government will need to sort all the BAL mess they are creating.

This is not to say political stability has not paid any dividend, because it clearly has. It has also costed us. History will be the judge of BAL era but I suspect it wont be kind.
 
I do not understand why BD people tolerate Hasina and BAL.

BD badly needs a revolution like Srilanka to kickout Hasina and BAL out of BD permanently.

China and Pakistan should provide support to BD military to get rid of Hasina.

:rofl: Pakistan providing support to BD to restore democracy !
 
2. Indonesia - Now they are growing and moderately successful at per capita GDP of 4,691. Indonesia became independent on 1945, way before Bangladesh. Indonesia has natural resources and tourism, and yet their GDP per capita is little above Bangladesh. If dictatorship was so great, why isn't Indonesia in the mid-10K per capita GDP by now?

1945 is our self declaration of independence. We need to fight both Britain (that bring those Indian troops as well) and Dutch until 1949. Our de facto independence is 1949.

After that there was long internal war as rebellion were every where and then we need to prepare for another war to get Papuan island as during 1949, Papuan is still not part of Indonesia. See Operation Trikora where we need to fight Dutch once again in 1961-1962.

1960-1966 we basically fought British/Australia/New Zealand/Malaysia/Singapore as Soekarno wants to invade Malaysia/Singapore.

In 1966 our economy was broken and we have huge debt coming from Soekarno military expenses from buying USSR military equipment.

Indonesia started to focus on economy since 1967 when were under Soeharto. Our GDP percapita is double Indian GDP per capita.

Our inflation in 1966 reached 1000 %

 
1945 is our self declaration of independence. We need to fight both Britain (that bring those Indian troops as well) and Dutch until 1949. Our de facto independence is 1949.

After that there was long internal war as rebellion were every where and then we need to prepare for another war to get Papuan island as during 1949, Papuan is still not part of Indonesia. See Operation Trikora where we need to fight Dutch once again in 1961-1962.

1960-1966 we basically fought British/Australia/New Zealand/Malaysia/Singapore as Soekarno wants to invade Malaysia/Singapore.

In 1966 our economy was broken and we have huge debt coming from Soekarno military expenses from buying USSR military equipment.
1662686000436.png

1662685886264.png


 
At some point Hasina has to give up power. Look at the history of South Korea, Taiwan, Chile. It is anyone's guess when the time is
 
@mmr

I hope there is a free and fair election and peaceful transfer of power.

I am all for a free and fair polls as long as SHW comes back to power.

@PadmaBridge

What bad deal has she signed?

Regards
Lol nope not going to happen. Hasina will die one day and then there will be power struggle among her own family and party unfortunately.
 
What was your question?



How can a slave owing society be considered democratic? Are you insane!!!???

And Britain was a functioning monarchy during the reign of queen victoria. Parliament was advisory only. She had veto power.

If you think Victorian Britain was democratic, let’s make Hasina queen with veto power 🤣🤣🤣


My question is has she really handed in her resignation? As I have seen nothing On the news about this to verify it.


Is it just a rumour?
 
.

You need to specify your barometer of what you consider to be a democracy. Democratic empires have existed since athens and rome to UK and France to US by restricting the democratic franchise to a few. But they are still considered democracies.

No dude... parliament is sovereign in UK... the monarch has veto power theoretically...never been tested and if it ever came to it, parliament will win.


Very well argued..

Parliament only became sovereign after the death of Victoria.

Victoria chose prime ministers and amended key laws she did not like.
 
Parliament only became sovereign after the death of Victoria.

Victoria chose prime ministers and amended key laws she did not like.
Respectfully no, I am not sure where you are getting this. westminister is called the mother of parliament precisely because it has reigned supreme for so long.

Queen victoria never choose any PM, just like now she would invite the head of winning party to form government on her behalf.

That is not selection just the process within an constitutional monarchy.

But reading between the lines, you do not consider UK to be a democracy either?
 
Back
Top Bottom