Editorial

Grameen Ordinance changed

Bank's unique character lost
With the President's approval of Grameen Bank (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, the board's powers stand considerably curtailed. Henceforth, it is the Chairman who in consultation with members of the board will form a 3 to 5 member selection committee for the search of a new Managing Director (MD). What is of import here is that under the original Grameen Bank (GB) Ordinance, 1983, the authority for appointment of MD lay squarely with the Board. No longer is this the case. For over a year, the tussle between the Chairman and board members has gone on with the board's recommendations for probable candidates rejected repeatedly. What is found to be extremely disconcerting is that the new amendment effectively paves the way for government control of the bank and opens the door for partisan appointment to the topmost executive position of the institution. We have all witnessed the dire consequences of such appointment of directors in state owned banks and it is feared, not without justification that GB, a bank owned by some 8.3million women, 95 per cent of who are destitute rural women will have little say in how it is governed in the future. It is with dismay that we watch the clipping of wings of the board that is reduced to mere consultation, for it is no longer the board but the selection committee which, in consultation with the Chairman will select the new MD. It will be difficult to cite an example where a shareholder having stake of a mere 3 per cent takes over the running of the bank by effectively marginalising the remaining 97 per shareholders into submission. The outpouring of sympathy and support for Professor Yunus from professionals, members of civil society, women leaders and the general public domestically says much about the man's integrity and reputation. With the government deliberately turning a deaf ear to protestations both domestically and internationally and effectively disempowering the vast majority of shareholders of GB, it is in breach of trust with the true owners of the bank. Only time will reveal how a resounding success story has been put off track by denying the bank's real owners their right to decision making.