The ongoing dispute over port leasing or appointment is essentially entirely ideological. If you are a leftist socialist, then port leasing or the appointment of private/foreign investors will appear to be a wrong or criminal act.

If you are an advocate of a free market economy or a capitalist, then it will seem like the right thing to do.

Leftists, due to their political beliefs, “must” oppose foreign leasing or investment in ports. There is no room for debate or logic here; it's a matter akin to [their] religion. Socialism dictates that ownership, production, and distribution all belong to the state.

Therefore, any leasing or foreign investment goes against this socialist ideal.

Capitalism, meanwhile, means creating pathways for wealth creation. It demands investment, whether private or foreign. It requires infrastructure. This is what generates wealth or revenue and creates employment.

Yes, the capitalist-believing parties like the BNP and Jamaat issued “mild statements” against the port deal but that probably happened just for the optic.

I personally believe BNP is pleased. This is because, if they came to power, the BNP would not have been able to hand over the port to foreign investors for fear of criticism from leftist-leaning civil society.

They would have faced political damage with accusations of "selling the country." Therefore, the fact that the Yunus government is carrying out this work benefits the BNP.

The Awami League believes in a leftist-leaning economy. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman nationalized all the country's mills and factories in the style of Lenin. Although the Awami League has moved away from that and Sheikh Hasina has embraced capitalism, they are probably ashamed to admit it openly.

Look at a few years ago, when the government closed down loss-making state-owned sugar mills, leftists vehemently opposed it. Their argument was that it destroys workers' employment.

They argued that the government spends so much money on other things anyway. The factories must be kept running, even at a loss, for the sake of the workers' jobs, and with proper management, the factories would eventually become profitable.

The belief that a state-controlled factory will eventually become profitable is primarily a socialist conviction. It has no relation to logical debate. If you ask, "Why should the factory be kept running at a loss using the public's tax money?"

The socialist will reply, "Where is the loss? The workers are employed, they are taking home wages, and they are supporting their families—that is the profit."

Different viewpoints

But viewed through the lens of capitalism, it is entirely a loss.

In a capitalist system, the government would hand over loss-making factories to private or foreign management. This is done so that good management can reduce production costs, increase capability and efficiency—even by cutting unnecessary workers who act as trade union leaders, or officers kept around just to open and close files—and can make a profit and pay revenue to the government.

They can also create new jobs through fresh investment. For this reason, the government offers various benefits, including tax exemptions, to investors. For example, the two foreign companies investing in the ports have been given a 10-year tax rebate.

With that revenue, a social democratic government ultimately performs welfare work. For example, it provides low-cost food items through TCB (Trading Corporation of Bangladesh), gives various types of allowances, and subsidizes fertilizer, fuel, and electricity.

In the old days, capitalist governments would leave the entire economy in the hands of business owners. That world no longer exists. Social democratic thinking has emerged. Now, the government does not control businesses, but it does set workers' wages.

It not only builds roads but also provides various allowances and subsidies to the poor, collecting taxes from the wealthy.

In government jobs, employees get paid whether they work or not. This is essentially why public sector management fails to make institutions successful, and massive corruption occurs. This is primarily why socialism has failed worldwide.

Take, for example, BOESL (Bangladesh Overseas Employment and Services Limited), the government company for manpower export. The Managing Director’s staff alone includes six people, including a PS, a peon, and an orderly.

The 32,000 square-foot office has hundreds of officers and employees. Yet, the total business they conduct in a year is less than what a recruiting agency does, operating out of a single room shared by two people in Nayapaltan.

The entire private office has only two people. The government employees at BOESL know they will get paid regardless of the business output, so they don't hustle for orders to send workers abroad or market in villages.

But the private company knows that if there is no income, they will be out of business by the end of the month. So, they run like horses to capture business and make a profit.

The story of the ports is the same. The Pangaon Terminal in Keraniganj, developed by the Awami League, is a loss-making institution. Although the Chittagong Port financed the construction of the Pangaon ICD (Inland Container Depot) with its own 156 crore taka, it could not be made operational for ten years.

This terminal has incurred a loss of approximately 165 crore taka over the last twelve years. In contrast, all private ICDs are profitable.

Understanding economic reality

Our economy is capitalist, so no matter how hard the government tries until the end of time, it will not be able to fully utilize Pangaon's capacity, let alone make it profitable, under its own management.

This does not happen with government employees; this fact is tested and proven, and there are many theories explaining it. (Now a leftist might argue that Chittagong Port is profitable. The reply to that is: Is the port authority capable of generating the income and providing the speed of service it should? Is there no corruption?)

The Swiss company that received the contract to invest in Pangaon Port is named Medlog Bangladesh. This means it has registered in Bangladesh for business purposes. They won't take your port away. They will operate it, and then they will leave.

They will take a portion of the income themselves and give the other portion to the government.

For instance, the Dhaka Elevated Expressway was built under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) by foreign companies Ital-Thai, Sinohydro, and Shandong. They built the road with their own money.

They will collect tolls for 22 years to recover their investment, including interest. After that, they will hand the expressway over to the government and leave.

So, why are the leftists demanding that the contract not be published? The agreement signed with Ital-Thai, Sinohydro, and Shandong during the Awami League tenure was also not published, and it will not be.

This is because the companies make different deals in various countries around the world. They will not disclose the terms of their business with one country, otherwise another country would use it as leverage, saying, "You gave them a cheaper deal, give me one too."

And regarding the port in Laldiya that is being discussed much for the nature of the deal, we have to understand the nuances. APM Terminals, a subsidiary of Denmark's AP Moller-Maersk Group, will first build the terminal in Laldiya with its own money. Then it will conduct business, share the profit with the government, and leave after 30 years.

The fact is that countries around the world are handing over not just ports, but also airports, power, railways, and other services to the private sector. If Bangladesh wants to develop, it must also follow suit. The sooner, the better.

Government employees, assured of their jobs, salaries, and unofficial perks, will not easily allow this. There will be significant protests. Nevertheless, it is better not to be half-socialist and half-capitalist.

Rules of the game

The first rule should be that the government will not engage in any business or operations. These should be managed by private players. The government's role should only be to regulate, ensuring that monopolies do not form.

The leftists will argue that this will increase operation costs and raise the price of goods. I say, let the prices rise. There is no problem. Because the demand and supply chain will eventually determine the price.

The government's job is only to monitor the chain and keep it fair. The market will take care of the rest. The government must generate substantial revenue from the market. This money should be used to provide subsidies for food, housing, education, and healthcare for the poor.

Farmers must be given cheap fertilizer and electricity. Revenue must be increased to ensure that the poor do not become poorer, and equity must be provided to marginalized communities.

However, if you yield to the fear of criticism or engage in debates with the leftists, you will fail. For a long time, due to leftist literature and journalism, the narrative has been set, and the concepts of "foreign" and "corporate" have turned into insults in our country.

This taboo must be broken to create an investment-friendly environment for foreign and corporate entities. We must help create 50 to 60 unicorn companies. No leftist country has achieved these things.

China was able to do so only after bidding farewell to socialism in its economy. Vietnam has also gone down that path.

Just as the Muslim Family Law was enacted in this country without worrying about what the religious clerics would say, I am urging that  Dr. Yunus, before you leave, you should similarly shrug off the worry about what Purana Paltan (referencing the political heartland of the left/opposition) will say, and privatize as many operations as you can.

—

Rajib Ahmed is a journalist based in Dhaka