Bangladesh, teetering on the edge of an economic crisis, has been named ‘Country of the Year’ by The Economist. The UK-based publication selected Bangladesh due to its success in “overthrowing a dictator.” However, critics have labeled this choice as “questionable,” with some even terming it “panauti,” meaning bad omen for the nation.
Bangladesh has been named The Economist’s Country of the Year for “overthrowing a despot” and “making progress towards a more liberal government.” However, The Economist might benefit from a reality check. Following the ousting of the Sheikh Hasina regime, Bangladesh has experienced significant chaos and remains far from economic stability. Additionally, The Economist’s past selections for Country of the Year have often resulted in complete failures.
The Economist acknowledges that “Islamic extremism poses a threat,” and that Bangladesh must mend its relationship with India and conduct timely elections. This choice has left many surprised and questioning, and there are valid reasons for this response.
Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government received acclaim for lifting millions out of poverty in Bangladesh, largely through industrial development in the garment sector. However, the connection between politicians and big business also led to significant corruption that adversely affected the country’s economy, as detailed in a white paper by the caretaker government.
The Hasina administration provided approximately 15 years of stability in Bangladesh, contributing to economic growth. Nonetheless, civil society groups have accused her government of involvement in enforced disappearances and human rights violations.
The real question is how justified The Economist’s enthusiasm truly is.
REASONS BEHIND THE ECONOMIST’S SELECTION OF BANGLADESH AS COUNTRY OF THE YEAR
“The winner is not the richest, happiest, or most virtuous place, but rather the one that has shown the most improvement over the past 12 months,” explained The Economist. As usual, five countries were shortlisted.
Syria was a late addition following the toppling of the Bashar al-Assad regime, according to the London-based news magazine, ultimately finishing as the runner-up.
The other contenders included Argentina, South Africa, and Poland.
The Economist’s inclination towards regime change and what it considers “liberal” transformation is clear.
“Mr. Assad was undoubtedly the most oppressive tyrant deposed in 2024. However, the quality of what succeeds him is also important,” it noted, acknowledging that Syria “may fall apart.”
When announcing the winner, The Economist’s bias towards regime change was evident: “Our winner is Bangladesh, which also ousted an autocrat.”
REASONS BEHIND THE CRITICISM OF THE ECONOMIST’S CHOICE
A stable Bangladesh is a desire shared not only by its own citizens but also by the people of India.
The attacks on minorities and the imprisonment of leaders like Chinmoy Krishna Das, who advocated for the protection of minority rights, have led to widespread skepticism.
“The West surely knows how to crack the best jokes,” remarked Faran Jeffery, deputy director at ITCT, a think-tank based in The Hague, on X.
Gaurav Dalmia, Chairman of Dalmia Group Holdings, commented, “I think it’s a very debatable choice.”
“Improved in establishing Islamists or in increasing persecution of minorities? Or is it because Yunus is a deep-state puppet installed via an undemocratic coup? But you seem to favor that. And what ‘improvement’ exactly has occurred?” questioned US-based author Sankrant Sanu on X.
“What exactly is The Economist celebrating? Overthrowing a democratically elected government (conveniently labeled as a tyrant) or replacing it with a puppet of Islamic extremists who unleash havoc on minorities? Bankrupt of any journalistic values. Shame!” wrote P Karteek, Bengaluru-based founding partner of Java Capital, a pre-seed/seed venture fund, on X.
BANGLADESH’S GDP FIGURES AND FORECASTS CONTINUE TO FALL
The economic situation in Bangladesh, which has drawn concern from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and experts, is another major issue. The country faces a looming economic catastrophe following the violent regime change in August.
Analysts have informed United News of Bangladesh that without a rapid increase in public and private investments, the country risks descending into an economic crisis in the near future.
Bangladesh’s post-Covid recovery has been hampered by high inflation, a balance of payments deficit, and vulnerabilities in the financial sector. Real GDP growth has slowed to 5.2% in the fiscal year 2024, down from 5.8% the previous year, and is expected to decline further to 3.8% in FY25.
The IMF recently revised its October projection for FY25 from 4.5% to 3.8%.
According to Reuters, last week, IMF officials disclosed that Bangladeshi authorities requested approximately USD 750 million “to maintain macroeconomic stability and bolster the country’s resilience to external shocks.”
“The Bangladesh economy continues to face persistent challenges and is encountering new external financing needs,” an IMF official told Reuters.
Despite the regime change, economist Hossain Zillur Rahman noted that the domestic market remains dominated by oligarchs.
Inflation also poses a significant concern, averaging 9.7% in FY24, driven largely by rising food and energy prices.
HOW HAVE THE ECONOMIST’S PREVIOUS COUNTRIES OF THE YEAR PERFORMED?
In response to Bangladesh being named The Economist’s country of the year, banker-turned-author Amish Tripathi pointed out that previous winners such as Tunisia, Myanmar, Armenia, and Ukraine have faced challenging situations.
“In India, we use a term called ‘panauti,'” Tripathi remarked, referring to the Hindi word that roughly means bad omen, while sharing the list of countries.
“Please observe what happened to those countries after they were recognized by The Economist as Country of the Year: 2014 Tunisia, 2015 Myanmar, 2018 Armenia, and 2022 Ukraine…,” he wrote on X.
Most nations that have received this title from The Economist have encountered significant negative repercussions, politically or financially, leading to unrest.
In Tunisia, political instability followed the assassination of opposition leader Mohamed Brahmi, igniting widespread protests. Myanmar, named Country of the Year in 2015, experienced an escalation of the Rohingya crisis shortly thereafter. In subsequent years, the country plunged into a violent civil war following the military junta’s ousting of Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratic government.
Colombia, awarded the title in 2016, signed a historic peace agreement with the guerrilla group FARC, but faced delays and revisions due to an initial referendum rejection. Today, with the civil war ongoing, 8.4 million Colombians are living in conflict, according to an August report from the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).
Armenia experienced the Velvet Revolution in 2018, a peaceful protest movement led by Nikol Pashinyan that resulted in the resignation of Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan over allegations of “corruption and incompetence.” The revolution, combined with the twin challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, losses in the war with Azerbaijan, and a recent refugee crisis in 2023, has strained the economy.
While receiving the title of ‘Country of the Year’ from The Economist does not inherently bring about crises, the history of previous winners raises questions about the London-based magazine’s selections, their criteria, and apparent lack of foresight.
Read more trending news here
