Conspicuous by its absence from all of Dr.Yunus’ pronouncements thus far, ever since he started closing the gap between himself and political engagement till now that he can be all but said to be a politician, has been his ideological standpoint. Before he left for Calcutta having just floated the idea of floating a party, he spoke of the rather obvious. The shambolic state our political process is in; the need for new faces to rejuvenate it. On his return, he has sprouted visions of considerable grandeur. Mega ports; mega highways; mega museum exhibitions. Somewhere in between, it dawned on him staying apolitical would not do. Somewhere in this protracted process that constitutes taking a stand, I hope he didn’t manage to lose what he stands for.

What he has said thus far is not indicative in any way of how he plans to lead our nation. He has only spoken of what he wants for our country, and admirable as they are, that is not enough. More importantly, none of it is original. It is all very well to speak of lofty ideals, it is a very different matter to translate them into practise. Indeed, Dr. Yunus has never, even before his proximity to politics became so narrow, taken any clear stand on the ideological spectrum. Nobody is quite sure whether he is standing to its left or right. His rhetoric in the past few weeks has betrayed only populist or neo-populist tendencies. Even the name he has suggested for his party leaves little to the imagination. It is possible he may be drawing his inspiration from the recent success of populist movements in Latin America where Alan Garcia in Peru, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Nestor Kirchner in Argentina have all ridden this wave to power.

All three are demonstratively leftist. All three countries have been doing quite well in their initial years(for example Venezuela’s economy has been growing at over 8% per annum under Chavez, in-spite of the vilification he is often subjected to in the Western media). Given that one of the major causes of the recent breakdown in the political process in Bangladesh was the growing inequality between the owners of capital and the working class, leftist policies based on nurturing a more egalitarian society may well be welcome. This article is not meant to expound on economic theory, but Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world with one of the highest percentages of production, 93% according to Dornbusch, Fischer and Startz(2000), carried out in the private sector. The time may be ripe for a rebalancing of that figure.

But Dr.Yunus himself has made no overtures to that effect. He is certainly the darling of America and Grameen has certainly shown no qualms about assuming a more-and-more commercial visage in recent times. He has also never once spoken out against the Washington Consensus or put forth a critique of any sort on the neo-liberal agenda that international organizations have tried to shove down our throats. His modus operandi may actually bear deeper marks of the neo-populism of two leaders who preceded the current regimes of Peru and Argentina, Alberto Fujimori and Carlos Menem respectively. Both combined populist political rhetoric and free-market economics, and were hailed as agents of neo-liberalism. But that represents an irreconcilable paradox, and both regimes, after initial periods of success, failed the test of time drastically. Populism in general, and neo-populism in particular is a victim of sitting on the fence as it were. By definition, it embraces neither right nor left wing policy. By definition too, it embraces both. In politics, it is the indoctrination of the Hamiltonian dictum-‘Those who don’t stand for something fall for anything’. It is my fervent hope that Dr.Yunus will not fall victim to its initial promise of the potential to unify. It may purport to cut across divides, but what it does is merely skim over them. And long-term thinking dictates divisions that already exist should not be skimmed over, they should be negotiated and resolved.

Regardless of whether he was right or wrong, one Bangladeshi politician I have always admired is Mr. Saifur Rahman, our immediate-past finance minister, because he at-least had the courage of his convictions to take a stand, and time and again he stood up(okay, without much success but one rarely succeeds against ->)the IMF and the World Bank. Dr. Yunus, to be a leader, has to display the courage of his convictions. And he has to do so by clarifying his ideological stance. If he has one.

For we have heard none of it. Yes, he has promised honesty and transparency. Hardly a politician hasn’t, and an argument could be made that those who didn’t were of better ilk. He has spoken of the need to eradicate poverty. Just barely a nod of approval for that, but not yet a pat on the back. He has elaborated on the benefits that can be derived from upgrading our infrastructure. That will earn him that coveted pat, but it will not come alone. In its slipstream will be the following question: You have recognized the ends we must aspire to good doctor, but have you yet any idea of the means?

None of this will eventuate by merely envisioning it. Prior to arriving at concrete reality from grand vision, we must tread the path of attainment, and I would like to know which side of that path Dr.Yunus intends to lead us down. Is it the left, the right, or the centre? Up until this point, he has not distinguished himself as a champion of either liberal or conservative social and economic policy. The old order (if I may call it that) was of-course no different in this regard, in that one could never brand either one of them ideologically, but that had more to do with them being engaged in exploitation rather than politics. Dr.Yunus’ prime avenue to set himself apart as a politician is not to repeat the same old dreamy rhetoric cloaked in the sophistication of a Western education as he has done so far, it is to demonstrate he is armed to take on our troubles with ideology. He may still not succeed, but at-least it would be a point of departure from the bad old ways. The departure we need that he claims he can be, to give us back the good old days.