Two comrades, rising from the ashes of battlefield, possessing the same wisdom from years of struggle to protect the motherland from invaders and lessons from the same teachers, should have the same the destination or at least the same pace towards the destination. Nonetheless they don’t. Why? After having similar foundations built bit by bit by the predecessors, one comrade is on the verge of conquering the world and the other is struggling to keep its head above water. There were a many in the way they grew but a single difference in the way they continued their life made all the difference.
The first comrade, the Soviet Union, the follower of “the Marxism-Leninism doctrine”, grew like a superpower in the period 1950 to 1970. This growth was characterized by an extensive accumulation of wealth, “increasing rates of investment” and “fast growth of output” (Mazat & Serrano, 2009). This command economy utilized “the resource mobilization towards rapid industrialization” (Grossman, 1987). The priority was given to subsistence level consumption, military spending and investment in public goods like education. The whole economy was fueled by the inspiration and planning of the chief of state (Stalin) who led them to prosper in way that was unprecedented in the human history making them the “most educated nation in the world” (Gafurov, 2019). The relationships in the national hierarchy were based on subordination and the chain of command followed from the top vertically to the bottom – a system that was mostly driven by the compulsion of administrative (A) motive (where people work because they are ordered, not for their own economic incentive) (Gafurov, 2019). This communist country was showing the world an example of a success that stemmed from the loyalty to the communist party operated mostly by the reliable authority on whom the full functioning of production was based on. However, these authorities eventually became the critical economic structures required for the prevention of any collapse of this great nation. The Soviets had turned their economy into a system which was not led by the economic incentives (E-motive) of the bottom-line worker and their animal spirit was reigned with ironclad authority. Therefore, the ultimate onus is on the chief of state, thereby, leading the economy to an extremely vulnerable point. Mutineers, repulsed by the long (albeit successful) authoritarian regime, inspired by the extravagance of other market economies, were growing inside the state and waiting for an opportunity to overthrow the throne and bring in the culture that was seeming lusher. Eventually they did it. The era of development ended. They forgot all the good things initiated by their predecessors and neglected the foundation. With the wave of reformation, they brought “unimaginable corruption, criminal gangs, bad staff selection and the complete destruction of the economy” (Gafurov, 2019).
China (the other comrade) started the journey in the same way as the Soviet Union, even though it did not have the same starting point in the race. The whole country was repeatedly savaged by “foreign invasions, political strife and civil war” (Wei, 2019). The premise was worsened by “opium addiction, widespread poverty and infectious disease”. The average life expectancy of people was only 35 years (when Mao took over the power) (Wei, 2019). The chief of state, Mao, started to take steps starting with a rural revolution, “villages surrounding the cities” approach (Wei, 2019). Like Stalin, the principle of Mao’s policies was the Leninism. But Mao took both the “top-down and bottom-up mechanism”. He understood the importance of the bottom line, unlike the soviet proletariat. Mao’s steps, especially “Leninist Democratic Centralism” (taking central decision democratically with final approval from the chief of state) prevented the economy to reach the vulnerable point of sole dependency of the chief of state. However, this is not the reason why China did not have the same pathway. Mao also had mutineers. His step “Great Leap Forward”- where he took the lands, newly gained by the peasants for collective farming- caused starvation and uncountable deaths by hungers and he was also running an economy where the economic motive (where people work for their own economic incentives) was not prevalent (Wei, 2019). He denounced the teachings of most popular scholar of the then China, “Confucius” with the “smashing of four olds” in his cultural revolutions; sent Deng Xiaoping (his immediate successor) along with other millions of Chinese youth to the rural areas for reeducation from the Chinese peasants (Wei, 2019). Even after these incidents, Deng continued Mao’s works and followed Mao’s principle in his initiatives. I think even without having any concrete guideline regarding succession, China has enjoyed the greatest succession (Mao-Deng-Xi) in its leadership than any other state in the world (Wong, 2019) and that ultimately changed the course of journey from the Soviets. Mao defined national security and a foreign policy that was free of the influence of the western world – Deng opened the economy keeping Mao’s principle of control. Mao focused on self-sufficiency – Deng honed the capability by bringing FDI. Mao initiated “Strategic Triangle” with Nixon and Kissinger – Deng made the best out of this triangle by engaging in the market as an “independent actor”. Mao initiated “village surrounding the cities” as a reform strategy – Deng also followed the same path in his time where he started implementation of all projects with rural places (Wei, 2019). Deng had the plan of reforming and opening up and now on the basis of this reformation, Xi (current president) is going for the “China Dream” – “Calling for the rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation” – targeting the upgrading of China to be the greatest power in the world. We realize what China gained from this practice of succession, when we see its 60-fold increase in the economy, 220-fold increase in trade exports, $3 trillion in foreign-exchange reserve, dodging all big financial crises (1997, 2008) and giving birth to 20 of the biggest tech companies like Alibaba and Huawei in just 40 years.
Unlike China, we normally see in the history of least developed countries: one government is overthrown by a military or another type of government, they denounce every good and bad aspect of ruling of the predecessors and reinvent the wheels. They unknowingly or knowingly start at the point where their predecessors also started. Let’s take the example of Bangladesh. In 1971, it achieved its independence in lieu of the sacrifice of 3 million freedom fighters and the honor of 0.2 million daughters and sisters in a 9-month-long bloody liberation war (Alston, 2015). Since the religion-based attachment of Bangladesh with Pakistan in 1947 by the British, Bangladesh (the then East-Pakistan) had suffered deprivation in almost all sectors, both economically and culturally. This exploitation by Pakistan led to the language movement of 1952, six-point movement of 1966, mass-uprising of 1969, and then the final war of 1971. After all these struggles and sacrifice, it started the journey as an independent nation on the principles of communism, then had a long military coup; then the people had to fight again for the democracy, which is still continuing, however, not in its effective form. Now, the politics is between two parties who are fighting each other for getting into the power. Whichever party comes into power, renounces the work done by the previous government just like Russia did in the past. Now after 48 years of independence Bangladesh is still considered an underdeveloped country – which it shouldn’t be. The Bengal (the name of Bangladesh in British period) was always considered the richest in natural resources, industrious human resources, agriculture friendly mild climate, fertile land and an unlimited supply of water from numerous rivers. It has the potential to leverage these resources, still now. What it needs is a plan and, more importantly, commitment to this plan. Otherwise, the condition will be like the comrade (Russia) who starts again and again from where it previously started. However, that comrade has enough capability and historical tradition to recover which already it has begun doing. But if it’s too late for countries like Bangladesh, they will not find any way back or forward and sink under the water. Then the tragedy will be greater, because unlike the first comrade, Bangladesh had the second comrade to learn and follow.