Reaction to Mansur’s sacking should be a wake-up call for Tarique Rahman

In the political arena of the US, a newly-elected President is usually granted a "honeymoon period". It is a tradition by which, for their first 100 days in office, the new President is given a relatively easy ride by Congress as well as the media. 

There can be exceptions, of course. When the President is someone as confrontational as Donald Trump, then his enemies in Congress, the media and civil society at large would find it difficult to adhere to this tradition for 100 hours, never mind days. 

There is no such thing as a "honeymoon period" in a parliamentary system of government, even though every now and then people in the media try to mimic the US system and speak of the "first 100 days" as if this was a thing. But it is not. 

The prime minister in a parliamentary system is held to account by the legislature from day one, and the media as well as civil society commentators — at least those with enough courage — take the government to task every time their actions betray public expectations. 

For Tarique Rahman, the scenario was expected to be somewhat different. For one thing, parliament has to convene for another couple of weeks. But more importantly, he came to power in a wave of sympathy and goodwill. So a "period of grace" was in order to allow the new PM to find his bearings.

But as it has turned out, this imaginary honeymoon period for Rahman lasted precisely seven days. 

The Mansur incident

Initially, Rahman drew general praise through some small gestures, such as using his own vehicle rather than the official one, not requiring the police to shut down traffic when his motorcade travels through the city jams, etc. A rather more significant gesture was treating President Mohammad Shahabuddin with the respect that his office deserves, and it has not gone unnoticed. 

But the sudden termination of the contract of Ahsan H Mansur, the governor of the central bank, practically ended the soft-glove approach everyone had taken towards Tarique Rahman. There was every likelihood that the new government would want to appoint a new governor of the Bangladesh Bank, but the manner of Mansur's removal left a bad taste in many people's mouths. 

Governor Mansur had earned a degree of respect among a significant section of society through some honest, diligent work. Most people expected the new BNP government, projecting a modern, reformed image of itself, to act in a different manner.  

But even before the shock of Mansur's sacking subsided, came the news that his replacement would be a businessman, Mostaqur Rahman, owner of a garment exporting company. The new appointment raised more eyebrows than even the previous sacking. 

It is true that the Bangladesh Bank had never enjoyed the kind of independence that central banks in more advanced countries do. But even by Bangladeshi standards, the appointment of someone with little background in economics or monetary policy formulation or regulation, shocked many people. 

Conflict of interest

It is no secret that industry has a vested interest in seeing monetary policy taking a specific path. That path would be beneficial to industry, but may not necessarily be appropriate for the economy as a whole.  If the governor of the central bank appears to be aligned with one vested interest group, then the institution's ability to take independent decisions may be brought into question. 

It is baffling as to why this glaring conflict of interest was not deemed important by the new government, which has pledged to open a new chapter in the country's governance. But while the appointment of a businessman to take charge of the central bank is certainly a "new" development, it is hardly a progressive one. 

This one decision by the government has almost nullified all the good words spoken and gestures made by Tarique Rahman since he returned from his 18-year self-imposed exile last December. This risks marking his prime ministership not as a harbinger of positive change, but a replay of old-style cronyism, where vested interests hold sway over policy-making. 

The government, especially the prime minister himself has been the target of a torrent of criticism since the sight of a respected governor leaving Bangladesh Bank, almost hounded by a mob of employees, unfolded on social media.  

This was almost reminiscent of mobs of students at colleges and universities around the country humiliating their teachers, often forcing them to resign, after the fall of the Awami League government in August 2024. 

Deeper malaise 

The mob culture that flourished under the interim regime of Muhammad Yunus was supposed to die after the elections. Indeed, the new Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed had declared on his first day in office that mobocracy would have no place in the new Bangladesh. Those words sound pretty hollow after the way Mansur was treated.  

It would be a mistake to treat this as a personal issue, i.e. Mansur-good vs Mostaqur-bad. Mansur was not as saintly as some commentators are making him out to be (adulation in true Bangladeshi tradition.) 

Nor is Mostaqur certain to be as oblivious to the national interest as it is being suggested. One needs to look beyond the person, Ahsan Mansur, and see this incident as one of the symptoms of a malaise that has afflicted Bangladesh for decades. 

This malaise rewards loyalty, not merit or competence. This malaise abhors institutional independence and promotes centralisation of power in the prime minister's office. Glimpses of other symptoms of the malaise have appeared in the media recently, where ministers and other officials referred to "instructions" by the prime minister to take actions. 

Prime Minister Rahman has enjoyed undiluted sympathetic coverage in the media and goodwill from civil society in the past few weeks. But the Mansur incident has demonstrated the limits of public patience and acceptance. 

The incident alarmed civil society because it suggested the country may once again be in danger of sliding down the slippery slope to cronyism which thrives under authoritarian rule. The sharp public reaction to the incident should be seen as an early wake-up call for Tarique Rahman, that something better is expected of him, and a big majority in parliament is not a mandate to do as he pleases. 

The prime minister needs to draw appropriate lessons from this incident which may, to borrow a bit of US media nomenclature, end up being known as Mansurgate. 

The writer is former head of BBC Bangla and former managing editor of VOA Bangla. He can be contacted at: sabir.mustafa@gmail.com.