Muhammad Yunus: the time has come to act
Nick Stace explains why the UK government needs to take a firmer stand against Bangladesh's persecution of the micro-credit pioneer, Muhammad Yunus.
"They said they would kill me if I don't call off the protests. They beat me with sticks. I begged for my life. They broke my hands and left me in a field." These are the words of Sagir Rashid Chowdhury, the chairman of the Employee Association of Grameen Bank, who last week was brutally beaten at the hands of thugs for supporting Professor Yunus and the work of Grameen in Bangladesh. Since I last wrote on the subject, there has been an escalation in the Bangladeshi government's resolve to rubbish and ruin Yunus and his supporters, intended to pave the way for the government's take-over of Grameen, which various sources say is now underway.
At the same time and with similar resolve, support for Yunus, known as "the banker of the poor", has become unstoppable, with 3.7 million people now having signed a petition; Mary Robinson leading Friends of Grameen with a powerful international coalition of supporters; and the French and American governments speaking up for Yunus at the highest levels. Privately, the UK government has also said it is sympathetic.
One might expect such an outpouring of support for a Nobel Laureate, but the intransigence on the part of the Bangladeshi government is perhaps more surprising. The stand-off stems from two events, one in 2006, the other in 2007, that upset the Bangladeshi prime minister, Sheikh Hasina. The first was that Yunus, not Hasina, received the Nobel Prize; the second, that Yunus was pushed to consider setting up a political party to challenge corruption in Bangladesh. Apparently Hasina has not forgiven Yunus and more recently she has called Yunus an "enemy of the country".
Hasina's bid to remove Yunus from Grameen started with the forced appointment of a new chair of Grameen whose first task was to sack Yunus on spurious grounds of age (he is 70). Yunus went to court to overturn the decision and then to appeal, and in both cases he lost. For a country at the top of the list of the most corrupt, it is perhaps unsurprising that the legal system kowtowed to the ruling party and that sinister forces on the ground have been allowed, even encouraged, to intimidate Grameen supporters since then.
The government's motives are clear and their methods are blatantly transparent, but of course only to those that know. For others, seeds of doubt circulate when accusations are made, legal cases are presented and stories about unscrupulous micro-credit lenders circulate. Mud sticks and some people less noble or less knowledgeable start to believe that there must be some truth in what is said. And perhaps most disheartening is that however effective the domestic and international opposition to the Bangladeshi government has been, it has been able to carry on regardless.
What is at stake is the future of Grameen Bank, its independence and integrity, and the rights of 8.6 million women borrowers who own 96.5 per cent of the share capital of Grameen Bank and who have elected among themselves nine directors to sit on the board.
It's so personal that even the son of Sheikh Hasina, Sajeeb, a US-based businessman, is also taking a keen interest. Sajeeb recently sent an email stating that Grameen Bank had been created by the government, not Yunus and that it had not helped anybody, given that 30 years after its creation Bangladesh is still one of the poorest countries in the world. The email also showed how interested the government is in taking control of Grameen Telecom with its 28 million subscribers. Sajeeb signed off his email as an "adviser to the prime minister of Bangladesh".
Following the false allegations that Yunus and Grameen had misappropriated funds (mentioned in my last piece), the Bangladeshi minister of finance set up a review which has now concluded that Yunus had done nothing wrong and that Grameen has the lowest interest rates in the whole micro finance industry in Bangladesh. However the report also states that the women on the board of Grameen must be replaced with more "educated and competent people" and the government should increase its shareholding across the Grameen businesses. From recent reports, it seems increasingly likely that this is their plan.
The government's takeover of the entire network of Grameen social businesses is driven by jealousy, greed, corruption and incompetence. Its own track record in running banks and the stock exchange has seen institutionalised corruption alongside a catalogue of failures. Just recently dozens of government-related officers were found to be insider trading before a market collapse in February.
If you accept former British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's view that foreign policy "is common sense and humanity as it applies to my affairs and yours", then some form of intervention from governments around the world could be the answer.
Possibly the most influential voice would be Britain, not because of historical ties (which may actually be counter-productive) but because of the announcement earlier this year that the Department for International Development will invest a record billion pounds in Bangladesh over the next four years. Britain also has strong trading ties with Bangladesh. Some quiet diplomacy initially, followed by more vocal challenge if necessary, might be the intervention that is required.
In many ways this is a real test for the UK government, given their approach is to give more aid to a fewer number of countries in order to have a bigger impact. Poverty relief will be set back a generation in Bangladesh if Grameen is not allowed to operate independently. UK aid may end up mopping up some of the damage caused to people who benefit from Grameen social businesses, rather than further alleviating poverty. The UK government needs to speak out to defend Grameen and Yunus because the legacy as well as the future of Grameen, alongside the impact of British aid, is at risk.
As Martin Luther King once said, "Almost always the creative dedicated minority has made the world better," and there is no question in my mind, to the women owners of Grameen, to the millions of Yunus supporters from around the world, that Yunus is that creative genius. But my greatest fear is that it also only takes a dedicated and destructive minority to make the world a worse place. There are moments in history when it is possible to look back and say that we should have, we could have or we did make a difference; I hope this is a moment when the determination of Yunus and his supporters, alongside the intervention of a few at the highest level, makes a real difference for the people of Bangladesh.
__._,_.___
