Backed by the military

International coverage of events in Bangladesh typically prefix "military-backed" to "caretaker government". It's become a standard and helps to invoke racialized stereotypes of jungles, bunnies and bananas. Expatriate Bangladeshis who use such references add to such stereotypes.

Before stereotypes shut down all possibility of critical thinking with respect to the caretaker government in Bangladesh, let's pause and ask a question. Can we name one government, democratic or otherwise, that is not military-backed? The answer is "No". In many countries, the support of the military to government is tacit; in others, it is more overt. In some, it has gone even further.

Take for instance the United States, where the the military is not just overtly visible in political life, it has actually merged with the political establishment. Or as Mike Gravel, Democrat presidential candidate puts it, the military as infiltrated American culture. In politics, joint chiefs of staff have become presidents (Dwight Eisenhower) and secretaries of state (Colin Powell). White House chiefs of staff have become defense secretaries Donald Rumsfeld) and defense secretaries have become vice-presidents (Dick Cheney). One can go on down the rank and file of appointments within both establishments. Attempts to insist that there is an actual division of interests between the two become harder and harder to sustain over time. This is because the merging is not only happening in political arena.

Not many countries have civilianized the military or militarized the economy as much as the US. For example, Hollywood and the Pentagon maintain ongoing dialogue on how the former can project a positive image of the latter. Every state in the Union has a section of its economy directly related to military-related investment and production capacities. Since the force transformation project conceived in the early 1990s, the Pentagon has created through outsourcing a vast array of satellite industries. Many of these are start-ups by ex-military servicemen with privileged knowledge of government business plans, contracting procedures and networks of ex-colleagues to call on.

The US leadership understood the value of the military to the economy during 1941-1945 when its involvement in global conflict helped the country put the depression of the 1930s behind it and create a decisive upturn in production and jobs. The likes of Boeing owe their global reach and influence within the Beltway to war.

And at a less obvious but no less pernicious level, tourist advisories warn travelers such as you and I against wearing military fatigues in certain countries (in case we are mistaken for rebel militia). In the US you can buy camouflage onesies for your infant child at Babys R Us. The message is clear, isn't it? Whether in politics, economy or society: The Army R Us too.

So, the next time you, the Bangladeshi, tut-tuts the caretaker administration being "military-backed", do look around and take note. We might have had unfortunate experiences in the past under various types of military rule. Yes, it is correct to apprehend a turn for the worse. Yes, it is right to remain viligant against such a course of events recurring. But no, I don't think it's okay to think that we are a drop-out nation that has to rely on the armed services to play a constructive role in public life.

The truth is, most do.