Photo : Messenger
Should development be the only target for a country to achieve? Does ensuring development alone meet all the conditions of a welfare state? Does questioning development mean opposing it or the wish to make it more sustainable, necessary, and well-planned?
Development is taking place in the country in many ways and becoming visible to us for the last decade. So, it becomes necessary to discuss and question it. First comes education. By dragging the quality of education down, the literacy rate has increased as the number of educated people has gone up.
Before the liberation war, we had only a few educational institutions for primary, secondary, higher secondary, and higher education. There were only four to five universities. The picture is totally different now. Educational institutions have sprung up everywhere as we have universities in every district and schools in every village. Studying at college and university is not impossible anymore.
Infrastructure-based development has exceeded expectations. Considering the statistics, if we think the quality of education has improved equally, then it is nothing but living in a fool’s paradise. It is sad, but maybe we are doing so. The quality of education has reached the lowest level against infrastructure development.
Research from the UNDP and Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Knowledge Foundation says Bangladesh is at the bottom in South Asia in three indicators among 154 countries. The 2021 research also said Bangladesh ranked 120th among 154 countries. Seven points were given priority in the research. These are pre-university education, technological and stipend-based education, higher education, research, development and innovation, information and communication technology, economics, and general capability.
Considering all these, can it be said the quality of education has improved? Or is it better to say the development is only about infrastructure? What is the value of development in education if it cannot raise educational standards to the international level? Did the idea of educational development focus on real development or allow a few individuals and groups to capitalise on it and have their own interests served?
It has been 53 years since independence, and the time we got was not short at all. Though some achievements have brought a ray of hope, disappointments linger too. We have secured big achievements in indicators where progress can be made individually. But on the political, cultural, institutional, and bureaucratic fronts, the situation is pathetic. So, it is clear that though the idea of the state is the idea of collectiveness, only individuals have developed on their own, but collective progress has fallen short of expectations. Our state is an institution that focuses on individual achievements rather than collective progress.
It is a shame for us that even after 53 years of independence, we could not firmly establish the idea of the state in everyone. We could not create any international image collectively in the last five decades. We should question the past, present, and future development aimed at getting out of this situation. Our development primarily is about the development of the communication system. The Padma Bridge, elevated expressway, metro rail, Karnaphuli Tunnel, and flyovers are good examples of development.
Undoubtedly, these are big achievements for us. But were these well-planned? It is difficult to answer that easily and satisfactorily. When metro rail runs above, other modes of transport frequently remain standstill on the road. Metro has made it easy to travel, but those travelling by other transports on the road suffer. So, what is the ultimate result? Do metro passengers think about the annoyance faced by those travelling on the road beneath them? If someone says everything will be fine when the whole Dhaka city will be covered by metro routes, that cannot be logical. There should be development based on accountability and sustainability so that it benefits everyone.
This is important because only then a state can achieve its goal of becoming a welfare state. We also need to keep in mind that development is not the only target. The people of the country want to see governance based on morality and justice where there will be a democratic environment. They want to see that good governance has been implemented while freedom of speech and freedom of the press will be ensured. Besides, social equality, equal development, and security will be ensured. Only then can development be considered the ultimate goal. Development is among the many important goals of a state, but not the only one.
If the country wants to become a welfare state, it has to ensure development in all sectors to meet the aspirations of all. Individual development can bring temporary benefits, but questions will arise about the extent to which those will play an effective role in the long term for greater welfare. Besides, questioning development does not mean disagreement. Bureaucracy and political forces can take advantage if public participation becomes limited and freedom of speech is not practiced. That is why well-planned, sustainable, and universal development is required.
If the state cannot present good governance and economic progress along with development, there is scope to question how much that development will play a supportive role in building a welfare state. If the question is not immediately raised for some reason, it remains.
The writer is a writer, journalist and researcher.
Messenger/Sajib
