Cooperatives In Bangladesh: Is The French Economist Rene Dumont Still Relevant?

It was 1973.

Months back, the Glorious War of Liberation in Bangladesh has compelled the occupying Pakistan army surrender. With three million martyrs, hearts were heavy with grief in the country. Signs of a war were everywhere, a ravaged, burnt to ashes land. But the dream for a Sonar Bangla, a prosperous Bangladesh, was bright in the hearts of the undaunted Bangladesh people.

Rene Dumont, a French economist, was invited by Swadesh Bose, the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies [then, it was BIDE] director at that time, “to give a quick ‘coup d’ ceil’ of foreign observer inside some problems of rural development of Bangladesh ‘in a socialist framework’”. The framework – socialist – was a fundamental question, as Rene wrote in the “Introduction” of the report: “In such a framework, the problem is also – mainly – a political one.” It was clear that Rene had not missed the fundamental question.

Rene, whose books including L’Afrique Noir Est Mal Petite, 1962 (False Start in Africa), Terres Vivantes, 1961 (Lands Alive), Nous Allons a la Famine, 1966 (The Hungry Future) raised important issues and some of which were bestsellers and much discussed, spent two weeks at village level in Bangladesh.

Professor Rene, at that time, director of research at Institut National Agronomique, Paris-Grignon, produced two tentative reports: A Self-reliant Rural Development Policy for the Poor Peasantry of Sonar Bangladesh (May 1, 1973) and Problems and Prospects for Rural Development in Bangladesh (November 30, 1973). In the first report he tried to answer questions Swadesh Bose raised. While findings answers to the questions Rene kept his eyes, as he wrote, on the issues of “problem of self-reliant, less dependent type of rural development” and “to benefit the landless and poor farmers Bangladesh need to reduce inequalities, not only in income, but also in status, privileges, prestige and education, to make an overall change in attitudes of rich-educated people, belonging to the urban privileged minority”.

Rene was aware of his limitation that made him write: “A foreign observer, in such a field, could give only his personal opinion, which are no advices.” Opinions Rene expressed in the reports made him a controversial person.

This year has been designated by the UN as the International Year of Cooperatives, and October is the month of cooperative. This provides an opportunity to look back at Rene’s opinions on cooperative in Bangladesh.

It should not be missed that his opinion was in the context of a certain socio-political situation. The assumption was state would initiate and take a lead role, and the poor would be brought forward. The idea was summarily expressed as Rene, in his 1st report, quoted Daniel Thorner: “If the cooperative movement wants really to obtain some results, two things should first [all emphasis in Rene] to be realized: 1) The power of the powerful people (mattabar [traditional village leader], well-to-do, influential rich people), the village potentates must be broken. 2) The government must become one tool, one instrument of ordinary people and must be considered as such by ordinary people, ordinary small peasant.” Then, Rene wrote: “I agree totally with Daniel Thorner.” The basic position of Rene bears no doubt. But the reality is different.

His position turns brighter as he wrote:

All the cooperatives “could not be successful on the conventional bureaucratic lines, […] they need more people participation for the main orientation, much more people control. And, this control, to be effective, needs a political support, even at the village level. And a new type of peasants’ organization, some kind of fight.”

He outlined proportion of representation in the proposed peasants’ organization at village level “to deal with all the land, water, tenants, borga [share cropping], and money lending problems at the village level. His proposed proportion of representation had majority of the landless, share cropper, small farmer, craftsmen, medium farmer. The approach keeps no confusion regarding the representation of the majority social classes.

He even wrote: “Here appears the absolute necessity of some kind of political and administrative support in favour of the poor and silent majority.” Rene proposed a section of the dominant political party in the hands of the poor, thana [the lowest administrative tier] level officers to be on the poor people’s side.”

Rene left no ambiguity. Issues of class difference, class power and class power equation were not missed by him. Political aspect of the reality the poor face was not also missed by the French economist.

But, he was expressing his expectation, which was based on expectation that others expressed although none of the expectations were based on the political reality, a major component of which was the class composition of the political power. This limitation made many of his opinions detached from class reality, a reality different from his assumption and expectation, a reality not non-antagonistic to the poor.

However, Rene was one of the first few on the cooperative question, who explicitly mentioned the dominant role the poor should assume and the political aspect if interest of the poor is to ensure.

It will be an absurd claim to say nothing has changed since Rene expressed his opinion. Significant changes are there in rural Bangladesh.

There are claims of achievement related to the lives of the poor. But has the of class power equation changed fundamentally? Doesn’t this get reflected in everyday life, in economy, society and politics? Don’t health, education, leisure, commodities being marketed, luxury being enjoyed, spending spree being advertised, crimes being committed exhibit the proportion of power social classes/segments hold in the society?

Media unerringly mirror the upper, middle and lower parts of the society. Power and influence each of the parts holds and practices also get reflected in the media.

The reality is so cruel that it arbitrarily brushes off claims of change made by acclaimed programs as it fails to deny the reality of class power equation. Achievements related to the poor, if real, would have changed position of the poor in the class power equation. The reality of the overburdened poor is so powerful that it permits none to forget the issues of the downtrodden, and compels all to pronounce: “fight out poverty”, “stand by the poor”, “this is for the poor and that is for the poor”, “we’re all for the poor”. Hands holding big, relative to Bangladesh reality, capital, persons standing under the shadow of that big capital, persons dear to international capital and interests, are much concerned with the poor, the weak, although the weak are the numerous, the majority. The feature films are laced with dialogues and symbols that don’t fail to show sufferings and humiliation the poor are pressed into and conspiracies hatched against them, and the feature films don’t fail to reflect the rage the poor hold in their brains. It’s a show of reality. It’s also a nice indicator.

Doesn’t this tell the reality of power equation? Do the poor, the social classes forming majority, need helping hands, lips, services, initiatives, ideas, concepts and concerns of a handful of minority social class? It’s needed. It’s needed for credibility; it’s needed for acceptability; it’s needed for legitimacy of the minority social classes. An absence of these makes many “things” unsafe in the status quo.

But, this reality, majority social classes need benevolence of a minority social class, is the unmistaken evidence of the power equation between the social forces. The condition of the poor, not only their living and working conditions, level of their voice, access and participation also, is a stark evidence of the unequal power equation between the social classes.

M Mahbubur Rahman, retired lieutenant general and former chief of army staff wrote: “The rich here are filthy rich and they are getting richer and the poor are mercilessly poor and becoming poorer. The gap is widening dangerously. The rich amass wealth by illegal means, by corruption, graft, tax evasion, drug trading, human smuggling, women and children trafficking and what not. It is said in Bangladesh all big wealth are stories of big crimes. You check up their cupboards and you will find human skeletons there. (“National budget and some ethical issues”, New Age, May 17, 2012) Similar observation – the rich-poor gap – has been expressed in many other parts of the mainstream, in its literature, some of which are by former senior civil servants of the republic. They are all learned, responsible and aware personalities. Neither Mr. Rahman nor the other parts in the mainstream represent left wing in politics and society. But the reality of the poor is so crude that it turns undeniable.

The rich-poor gap, widening, and seems ever widening, can’t escape equation in power of the social classes in the rural and urban areas. Logic of existing reality and power of private property ask not to deny the reality of unequal equation in power of the social classes. The present amount and quantity of private property was unimaginable in 1973, the time Rene visited Bangladesh. That reality of 1973 made him express opinion favoring the poor.

With this gap, the issue of the poor can’t miss an analyzing mind. Cooperatives also can’t escape the reality; can’t escape the issue of the poor. In absence of institutional initiatives to organize the poor, the poor and their allies can initiate cooperatives of the poor, of the downtrodden.

As part of the process, failures and debacles will accompany the initiatives to organize cooperatives of the poor. But, the poor organized in cooperatives shall have a ground to learn and practice financial planning, management and leadership, and other vital issues for their survival, which in turn will provide them a space, a space to stand on, a space necessary. The lessons learned will help them in their struggle that they wage in their everyday life with opposing class. Parts of Rene’s opinion will appear relevant while creating the space.