Time to heal the divisions

What is the state of affairs in independent Bangladesh like? Well, looking back, one feels that there have been both successes and failures. First, the achievements. We can take legitimate pride that, after ups and downs, the country reverted back to democracy in 1991. It is heartening to note our abiding faith in democracy. And there have been noteworthy strides in the social and economic sectors -- the country has had steady economic growth, especially since 1991, the life expectancy is longer, more and more people are getting access to education and health care. All these are all very encouraging. But what is mind-boggling is that despite all these achievements, the state of Bangladesh is confronting a persistent crisis -- the crisis that emanates from the lack of accountability and transparency in our political order. And that we have not yet been able to institutionalize our nascent democracy, although when the country became independent 1971, it was firmly believed that having democracy rooted in the soil of Bangladesh would not be difficult given the near homogeneity of its population. It was thought that a system would be established through which all frictions and divisions would be resolved.

Sadly it is to be reckoned that even after thirty-two years of independence we are compelled to admit that instead of evolving any mechanism through which all frictions and conflicts could be resolved, we have created an environment in which we seem to be submerging into ever increasing fragmentation and factionalism. The first and foremost disappointment is that the nation building has remained a far cry. It is yet to be achieved. It is indeed a tragedy that a homogenous nation like Bangladesh still suffers from a national identity crisis. And it is unnerving to note that we are a divided nation. Then there is the crisis in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, where peace has remained as elusive as ever. The anti-Ahmadia movement and its religious ramifications are ominous to say the least. Deteriorating law and order, escalating violence/terrorism, and the increasing repression of women are omnipresent. One of the fundamentals of the state seems to be at stake as it finds itself unable to secure order.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

What is it that is hampering the stabilization of the system? Of all the factors cited by the analysts, the most important factor that is creating impediments is our political culture that is characterized by authoritarianism and intolerance. In many ways the political parties are to be blamed for creating such an atmosphere. It is evident by the ways the two major political parties behave towards each other. They have demonstrated their utter inability to create a balanced political culture that is the sine qua non of a stable democratic order. It is amazing how our political leadership ignores the necessity of creating an environment in which democracy's set of values like moderation, tolerance, civility, efficacy, knowledge and participation, could be practiced.

Although it is argued that the evolution of these attitudes and beliefs depend on a life-time of socialization, as it happened in the developed West and in a country like Bangladesh it is not possible to have it overnight, but it is equally argued that it is also possible for the developing nations to learn the inner working and culture of democracy if they consciously try with commitments and political will. And it is the political parties that are entrusted with the primary responsibility to instill such culture in any polity by setting examples through their behavior. But we find that our parties do not set such examples for their activists or the citizenry at large.

On the contrary, misperceptions, mistrust, intolerance and antagonism between the two major parties vitiate the environment of a democratic political culture. Both parties feel that it has the moral superiority over the other. The tensions between the two parties have been reflected in the statements of the leadership. The ones they make about each other. Interestingly, the statements have no connection with the political situation of the country whatsoever and they simply lack a minimum modicum of civility. Our leaders are oblivious that these kinds of belligerency give wrong signals and they have serious repercussions on the polity as evidenced by the increasing violence and hatred in Bangladesh politics. As a result, this culture of intolerance, frictions and divisions gets reflected in every strata of our society. Everywhere we find intolerance. Dissent has no place be it is within the institutions or in personal lives. The general norm is that one must belong to one camp or the other. If one dissents one must belong to the opposite camp. It is like the culture of tribalism. No institutions can function fully in such environment. It is, thus, no wonder that our Jatiyo Sangsad has remained dysfunctional even after three peaceful transfer of power. What a pity it is to witness that the present Jatiyo Sangsad ever after twelve sittings continues more as a façade than a reality in the context of the absence of opposition and effective committee system.

Absence of opposition in the Jatiyo Sangsad is a deep malaise in our polity. The leadership has been unable to create a constitutional opposition due to their intolerant attitudes. Again it is the outcome of the culture of intolerance. In the developed democracies, the treasury and opposition mutually cooperate, but in our case the party in power creates barriers that keep the opposition away from the floor of the parliament, whereas the opposition opposes for the sake of opposition and prefers street agitation to constitutional politics. Time and again, attempts are made to overthrow the government through street violence and agitation, ignoring the fact that it may create impediments for another fundamental of the state, namely providing a mechanism to effectuate a peaceful transfer of power. Both treasury and the opposition forget that together they represent the nation and their mutual cooperation is needed to make the system functional. They forget that their confrontation politics is encouraging extra-constitutional politics rather than the constitutional ones.

Consequently the increasing violence and terrorism have taken over the center stage of our politics. Politics today has become criminalised. There has been an ominous nexus between black money, musclemen and politics. The influence of black money and muscle (terrorism) has become imbedded into politics due to the parties' confrontational politics and their unwillingness to register. The appearance of godfathers within the parties has been possible due to their lack of accountability or transparency. These plutocrats in Bangladesh are mostly the products of 'kleptocracy,' a term used by political scientist Stanslaw Andrewski, who while analyzing the politics of developing nations dubbed it (kleptocracy) a system that allows the political powers to extract economic surplus. We are familiar with the "kleptomaniacs (the ones who impulsively steal even if they don't need it), which gives us the clue that in 'kleptocracy' those who hold political power beginning from the highest position to a lowly fourth class employee milk the state rather impulsively and without any qualms of conscience. That means corruption is pervasive and the entire public edifice is like a bad infestation of woodworm. Everybody is affected in this system excepting the ones who hold the political power and public offices Anyone who lives in Bangladesh does not need further explanation for what it is like to live in a system where money buys power and power decides everything ,beginning from the application of law or getting a job in the public sector or receiving the services for which ordinary citizens have already paid. State, thus, is unable to meet the demands of its citizenry in widest possible scale. And Bangladesh now has the distinction of becoming the most corrupt nation of the world three times in a row.

The question now comes to mind as to what extent the citizens' groups are able to arrest the increasing crimilization of our politics and contribute to the emergence of clean ones that would help institutionalize democracy. A deeper look reveals that citizens' groups have a limited role to play and are not fully capable to play the role of the political parties, as they have no organizational strength to mobilize the masses. Their main contribution is to create public opinion and thereby make the political parties susceptible to that opinion. They mostly play a supplementary role. They can create new momentum or channelize the politics in a different direction only when there is unity between them and the political parties as witnessed during the anti-autocracy movement of 1990. Moreover, there must be unity within the groups in order to play the supplementary role. Here also, unfortunately, the politics of intolerance has created a rift by politicizing them.

The picture discussed above, unfortunately, is not a happy one. But this is the reality in Bangladesh politics. Naturally we have now to ponder as to how we can effectively get out of this vicious circle. Needless to say that it would require concerted efforts by both the citizens' groups and the political parties. The citizens' groups despite their divisions must try to create public opinion against the present state of affairs. Public opinion should be created for institutional reforms like how to make the parliament functional, how to make political parties more responsible and accountable, and how to make them work together, and how to put pressure on the political parties to implement them. The donors may also pressurize the stakeholders for the necessary reforms. The recent initiative taken to create a third platform is a good one and the momentum should be kept alive. But it should be kept in mind that since political parties are the main agents of change, they must be made to act. Otherwise, no matter how innovative the citizens' groups may be the necessary change would not be forth coming.

It should be uppermost in the mind that Bangladesh cannot prosper if the state is unable to perform the three fundamental functions namely secure order, provide a way for peaceful change of power, and meet the demands of its citizenry in widest possible scale. On this victory day we hope that political parties would comprehend the gravity of the situation and come forward to do the needful.

Dilara Choudury is Professor, Govt and Politics, Jahangirnagar University.