To me at least, Yunus appeared to be just another oligarch trying to enter the political arena - similar to Shinawatra in Thailand, Poroshenko in Ukraine, and Garibashvili in Georgia.
He attempted to enter the political arena in the 2000s with what appeared to be the backing of the Military [0][1] and he has a history of committing tax fraud and corruption [2][3] (though, tbf, any businessperson in Asia has to do this).
He also seems to use the same PR and Lobbying firm that Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Qatar, Milo Đukanović (Montenegro's former strongman and an actual mob boss), Muhammadu Buhari (former Dictator and later elected President of Nigeria), Uhuru Kenyatta (former President of Kenya wanted for rapes and murders in the aftermath of the 2013 election), and a couple conglomerates affiliated to Hezbollah use as well [4]
Sheikh Hasina is no angel, but it doesn't seem like Yunus or Grameen Bank/Telecom were ethical either [5]
I'm curious whether my read on this is correct though. I'd appreciate Banglas giving me feedback (especially Raynier)
[0] - http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/02/23/d7022301075.htm
[1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6530781.stm
[2] - https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/2137-bangladesh-microfinance-...
[3] - https://www.devex.com/news/norway-orders-probe-on-grameen-ai...
[4] - https://btpadvisers.com/case-studies/muhammad-yunus
[5] - https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/india-fuelled-hasinas-d...
> Sheikh Hasina is no angel, but it doesn't seem like Yunus or Grameen Bank/Telecom were ethical either [5]
I think this about sums it up. Yunus was a hero in the country for his pioneering work, but stepped out of his lane by entering politics. He misunderstood that Bangladesh is a quasi-democracy. Hasina has strong popular support, but also isn't willing to allow people to challenge her. And the nature of Yunus's businesses--providing capital to the poor--makes him an easy target. Hasina will lean into neoliberalism as long as it keeps her GDP growth numbers up, but will also wage populist attacks on Yunus for charging interest to the poor.
I don't think Yunus is totally clean, but I also don't think he's in the same league as the other guys you mention. It's virtually impossible to be honest in Bangladesh. I don't think you can run a big business like Grameenphone without breaking a lot of laws and paying a lot of bribes.
I should note that the potential military intervention in Bangladesh politics in the 2006-2008 timeframe was quite an unusual situation. After Ershad's fall, the Bangladesh military has been relatively weak politically, much more comparable to India than Pakistan. Many people I know entertained the idea of the military deposing Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina so the country could start with a clean slate.
It is important to put 3rd world systems into this sort of sympathetic context.
Sheikh Hasina had every living member of her family slaughtered by the erstwhile miltary. This part of the world necessitates constant paranoia.
In many ways, Bangladesh's quasi democracy state is a major achievement when compared to Bangladesh and the Neighborhood's past.
Biden's activist-interventionist tendencies have led to pressure on 3rd world democracies to emulate western democracies. This has been especially evident with Bangladesh.
I hope (naively) that the west will one day look at its track record on disrupting stable govts, and stop adding friction where it serves no geopolitical benefits. It's about 50 years too late for such kissinger-esque adventurism.
I agree with the general sentiment, though not for sympathetic reasons. Bangladeshis are not culturally capable of western democracy. Maybe someday, but certainly not now. But they are who they are, and Hasina’s strongman regime is probably the best that can be done at this time. So I agree that Biden’s interventionism about human rights and democracy threatens to disrupt a quasi-democracy that is at least functioning and make things worse.
> Biden’s interventionism about human rights and democracy
In whitepapers I've read, American opposition to Sheikh Hasina isn't about Human Rights and Democracy. It's about how Hasina is viewed as being too close to China, especially in the aftermath of the Padma Bridge fiasco, BRI, and the String of Pearls initiative. India is fine operating with Hasina because of mutual history and fear of the JeI, but the US is less interested in compromising with her due to the China factor.
Kissinger had no principles beyond "America biggest bully forever"... He was in particular anti democratic, as soon as this swept somebody into power who was not lined up with that "philosophy". I could say more but he is dead now, like Laos, like Chile, like everything that ghul touched. His meddling still dies damage though. Ukraine, a democracy, has so little active support worldwide, because Kissinger torched the ground and bullies have no allies in weak moments.
> I don't think Yunus is totally clean, but I also don't think he's in the same league as the other guys you mention. It's virtually impossible to be honest in Bangladesh. I don't think you can run a big business like Grameenphone without breaking a lot of laws and paying a lot of bribes.
Hence why I compared him to Shinawatra. His rise in Thai politics was similar to Yunus - US educated professor from a rural business/zamindari family who became an entrepreneur using political connections and later entered politics on a plank of being a reformer fighting for the poor.
The fact Yunus uses BTP Advisers is a big red flag for me, simply because you only use them if every other PR and Lobbying firm like Edelman, Ketchum, and BGR Gabara rejected you, which means you must have some severe skeletons in your closet.