At the end of the three-day meeting in Dhaka last week of the Bangladesh Development Forum (BDF), a euphemism for the World Bank-led Bangladesh aid club that used to meet annually in Paris , the World Bank Group made a kind of a firm commitment to "maximize its aid to the country, provided the latter responds equally with reform measures."

The BDF has been meeting in Dhaka since 2003 instead of at Paris for the foreign participants to have a greater feel of the place and the local people to have greater sense of participation.

Besides, it would also ensure fuller local media coverage on what goes on inside such meetings. For the first time the local media was allowed to cover it like any other major event and all materials were made available to them for greater transparency. The profundity in the changes at the secretive World Bank appears quite refreshing.

The estimated Bangladesh GDP growth for the current fiscal year (July 03 June 04) at 5.5 percent, up from 5.3 percent in the year before, has pleased the foreign participants at the meeting.

However, the World Bank specifically pointed out that even this growth rate did not reflect the country's "true potentials" as it is capable of notching up "at least two to three percentage point" above what has been achieved merely by improving governance and law and order situation.

Generally speaking, the meeting praised Bangladesh's potentials, the people's resilience and enterprise than the economy's actual performance, which reflected overall quality of leadership.

However, macroeconomic performance for the last couple of years has been described as "sound and impressive" and the IMF's Asia-Pacific Adviser Nissanke Weerasinghe commented: "the government's sound macroeconomic policies and advances in structural reforms are to be credited for the economic achievements."

The challenge that lay ahead to reach the millennium development goals (MDGs) and how to create an enabling environment in the country for ensuring investment and economic growth by eliminating existing impediments received wider attention during the discussions.

In his closing statement at the end of the meeting, World Bank's Praful Patel, also chief donor coordinator at the BDF, said: "We should aim to increase disbursement to $2 billion a year (in Bangladesh), from both increased commitments and faster aid utilization, based on an agreed Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and the progress on the issues discussed."

However, he also wanted to be on record that in the event of Dhaka's failure to fulfill commitments to control crime and corruption, improve governance and develop infrastructures, Bangladesh would not be given additional aid for the next year's PRSP. The normal quantity of aid would continue merely as humanitarian assistance, he added.

The adherence to the PRSP is going to be the basis for the World Bank and the IMF's economic and technical support for Bangladesh in the next few years. It would be Bangladesh's own poverty elimination strategy, which now appears would also become the WB's strategy for this country's development.

Patel said, "(The PRSP) will be a key benchmark in assuring ourselves and our (the World Bank) Board, for our support is likely to lead to further gains in poverty reduction and a strong development performance."

Predictably, the discussions concentrated on issues such as governance or the lack of it, widespread corruption, deteriorating law and order situation, violent and confrontational politics which are affecting the country's development and the future together with the role that both the government (meaning the ruling BNP) and the mainstream opposition Awami League (that has been boycotting the parliament since mid-2003) should play, dominated the three-day long sessions.

In the process, the meeting itself became somewhat confrontational and both sides tried to counter each other with persuasive arguments without mincing words, fuelling quite a live debate.

The World Bank country director in Dhaka Christina Wallick in her comment mentioned the nexus between "crime, police and criminalized politics" and clearly stated that such political practices threatened the rule of law and undermined democratic institutions, transparency and accountability.

At a dinner hosted for the heads of the delegations to the BDF, Wallick was brutally frank: "The links between crime, police and criminalized politics the violence and extortion associated with the police themselves, protected and patronized by both (ruling and the opposition) parties - were discussed last year. We are obliged to voice the same concern today."

Bangladesh Finance and Planning Minister Saifur Rahman, himself a ruthless critic of the country's 'criminalized politics, crime and corruption', however, reacted sharply at the donors' criticism broadside and said that the elected government was not bound to oblige and listen to what the donors' say.

"We are not here to please the donors", he said and added, "We have placed our plans and programme before the donors. They are free to accept or reject them. We don't work for the satisfaction of the donors but the people,"

Rahman, the country's most experienced finance minister and arguably the architect of reforms programme initiated in 1991-92 and who will present his tenth budget next month, gets on well with the donors.

The donors also like and appreciate his no nonsense approach to the country's economic problems. However, Rahman's sharp reaction intended to have a two-fold effect.

First, to convince his political constituency that only he can tackle the donors at the appropriate level; and second, to convey the donors not to push him too much, for they may have to deal with someone else who may not be that crafty and politically influential.

Although some of the bilateral donors during the course of the debate said that they might withdraw if law and order did not improve, Saifur Rahman, who led Bangladesh delegation and, along with Uganda-born World Bank Vice President (South Asia) Praful Patel, co-chaired the meeting, bluntly countered some of their arguments. He said: If there are scopes for the corrupt people to siphon money and deposit in your banks, how can a country like Bangladesh stop corruption?"

Talking to newsmen, World Bank's Patel said: "A part of the annual development aid in Bangladesh is either devoured by the corrupt people or misused." Promptly countering this observation, Saif said: "This cannot happen one-way.

This is a two-way process," implying involvement of some of the development partners. Again replying to donors' criticism for the government's failure in timely utilization of aid, he pointed out "You (donors) try to employ XY and Z in the name of conditions and (that's how) you cause delays in the implementation process.

On bureaucratic bottlenecks and lengthy government procedures that are not helping foreign investment, Saifur Rahman pointing to similar complications in Europe and said it required him a month to get clearance for opening a bank account in one of the major European country. But he added quickly: "We are trying to overcome our bureaucratic bottlenecks."

Two choices: And predictably too, the meeting emphasized on making 'key (national) policy areas off-limit to politics' that 'not to be used as destructive cannon-fodder' by the mainstream opposition and how the government is to promote 'national ownership of its poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) by the main opposition party.'

But how to achieve this seemingly impossible task in a democratic country dominated by politicians who draw their political legitimacy as well as sustenance through their inheritance?

This was emphasized only to ensure adequate measures for bringing about profound political reforms to make the political players accept a rule of the game. In fact, it was a call for a mutual accommodation for the two contending sides, namely, the government (it means BNP to the opposition) and the mainstream opposition Awami League and reach a consensus on major national issues.

Once the agreement is reached, these issues won't be allowed to be used as a 'political football' and thus create confrontation. This, together with proper reform measures, improved law and order and governance would ensure higher investment, both foreign and local and a much higher, 8 to 9 percent, GDP growth.

This would help attain the country's economic potentials and free the poorest section of the people from the clutch of poverty.

In case the opposition refuses to cooperate in this move, the ruling party would have to take the initiative to implement the commitments it has made to the donors such as improvement in governance, law and order and corruption on its own.

In any situation, the government has to take the charge and initiate changes. This is a two-fold task at the government's hand and it has to go ahead and discharge its responsibility.

Next, it has to initiate a serious attempt to get the mainstream opposition involved in a dialogue about the goal of reaching a consensus on key national areas that would be considered a no-go area for any political adventure.

The alternative is more violence with criminalized politics and more chaos. It will make a mess of whatever little progress that has been achieved by the sheer dint of the peoples' resilience and ingenuity.

The choice, therefore, is obvious. But will the inheritors of the country's political legacies see the writings on wall and behave? Only time will tell.