Political intolerance: How can we overcome?

Why tolerance is important?

Political tolerance is important at the individual as well as group and party levels for the evolution of a democratic society. If the major parties in a political system do not obey tolerant principles, democracy is in trouble. This does not, however, mean universal tolerance is required or even desired for the success of democracy. What is argued here is that by its nature democracy is a system of institutionalised competition of power, but if the competition becomes too intense, the system can break down entirely. Democracies therefore, must find mechanisms to mitigate conflict and divisions with consensus. This may happen in some societies over time with the emergence of a civic culture, but it does not happen automatically. Initiatives must be taken by the stakeholders of democracy to institute appropriate structures and agreements, such as constitutional sharing of power or agreements to manage and mitigate conflicts. In fact, the danger of continuing to live in a conflict-prone system leads to insecurity, social decay and reversals of democracy.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Roots of intolerance

Political intolerance in Bangladesh has a long history, but manifested conspicuously during the past thirty-three years in assassinations, coups, counter-coups, mass-upsurge, repressions against the opposition, and dysfunctional mobilisations against the government, and parties holding power. In fact, political intolerance has become a permanent feature in our political landscape. The democratisation process, rather than achieving greater tolerance, seems to have created a new culture of political intolerance where there has developed a high level of enmity and a strong sense of seeing political opponents as threats. Today, there is a widespread disillusionment with the government and the main opposition. The gap between the citizens' expectations and delivery by politicians in many areas is widening leading to grassroots intolerance.

The major sources of intolerance in Bangladesh politics can be found in psychology and historical enmity; alienation and authority; tendency to emphasis on artificial differences rather commonalities; language and speech used in political forums and in the lack of compromise and understanding among the contending parties. The way country's political history unfolded over the past decades since independence created many psychological bitterness and barriers among the contending parties. The current generation of top political leaders will hardly be able to overcome these barriers. Intolerance also grows from alienation of power, and in the arrogance of power. In Bangladesh, intolerance thus characterises both the party in power and the main opposition. The party in power usually perceives the opposition or dissenting group as threat, and intolerance grows as threat level increases. The opposition feels high level of alienation once it is out of power. It wants quick route to gaining power and thus become dysfunctional and intolerant. The disruption created by 'hartals' is a desperate manifestation of such mental state of the opposition.

The language used in the speeches of political leaders and activists in a democratic system needs to be cautious and courteous. In Bangladesh, these are lacking -- the language that is used to address leaders or describe the activities or the record of the political contenders becomes extremely provocative and objectionable. The speeches of the political leaders can be described as 'hate speeches' devoid of substance, and full of rhetoric and revenge. These speeches create adverse impact on inter-party relations and often incite violence and political enmity. In the process, the practice of tolerance and respect for others' rights and views are ignored. In such an environment, peaceful resolution of conflicts and coexistence of opponents become difficult. Politics becomes essentially a conflict rather than a mode of cooperation for common good. Political values relegate to the background, and survival as 'party man' becomes the dominant objective or purpose. The process becomes a 'winner-takes-all' game, degrading the process of fair competition.

How to overcome?

Today, Bangladesh is at an important crossroads in its political journey as a democratic state. Will the country march towards meaningful democratisation and greater economic stability, or will it go along increased political polarisation and relapse into a chaotic and ungovernable state? Much depends on overcoming the current level of political intolerance to a manageable level. This is not easy in Bangladesh given the historical legacy of bitterness, lack of vision of top political leaders and power-centric nature of the political parties.

Short-term measures: In Bangladesh, political parties hardly want to obey the "rules of the game" of a democratic system. The main reason for the two major parties not to be able to evolve a stable pattern of rules of the game is that both look upon each other as adversaries -- one tries to prosper at the expense of other. This is why two top political leaders of the country do not speak to one another, and are not willing also to make any meaningful dialogue. But if, we have to make a short-term solution to the problem of political intolerance, the two top political leaders must tolerate one another -- they must sit together and resolve conflicts for the sake of democracy and the country. Tolerance and inclusion are key words for the success of democratisation, but these must start from the top so that it can trickle down to the bottom gradually.

Medium and long-term measures: Political intolerance is of particular concern for Bangladesh. This intolerance is embedded in political participation and political activities. It is unlikely that in the short-run, this intolerance can be removed to create a congenial political culture compatible with a democratic society. Measures can be taken on medium and long-term basis to create a culture of tolerance in the political and social arenas. These measures need to be targeted at the individual as well as group and party level interactions -- in the exercise of votes, peaceful demonstration and expression of opinions, running for political offices, and the right to free speech on TV and media. The first lesson of tolerance is the respect for political rights of others, especially those with whom we disagree. Experience suggests that with proper education, training and socialisation, greater tolerance can be achieved among the party activists and aspiring leaders, and in society in general.

Education and orientation: In the medium term, younger people should be targeted to impart them with a culture of tolerance. Most young people develop the capacity to apply abstract principles to concrete situations. They have a heightened curiosity about social and political issues and, are keenly interested in their rights and responsibilities. Education should aim not only to create technocrats, but most importantly to create a framework where people with different ideas and values can interact. This experiential learning is more important for developing civic virtues in people at younger age.

Today, education in Bangladesh is in an extremely chaotic situation. It is not addressed to creating an enlightened citizenry. Civic education that includes orientation of political behaviour linking the individual to the polity and social institutions needs to be vigorously pursued. This civic education should take into account the people's direct experience in working together. In fact, the art of association in political and social life is an essential requirement for political tolerance and peaceful society. Education, should cultivate, more than any thing else, congenial civic dispositions of people, and loyalty to nation's fundamental values and principles.

Political socialisation and training: Historically, the people of Bangladesh have good religious tolerance unless it is used politically to whip up the sentiment to gain political dividend. Intolerance against religious groups is often viewed as regressive, nonetheless religious conflicts sometimes come to the surface. The elite opinion-makers and central political leaders of major political parties can contribute greatly to religious harmony in Bangladesh. Religious intolerance among a section of Muslim community exists, particularly in trying to enforce religious obligations, and showing righteousness of their cause in social context.

The most volatile section where socialisation is needed for political tolerance is the 'party leaders' who are intensely involved in party activities at various levels. These leaders and activists of major parties act mostly for personal and party interests. The actions they undertake in the name of the people or country often violate ethics of public life. Their motivations and integrity are often questioned. Today, political violence may not be at the level of civil war in Bangladesh, but deaths of more than three thousand people in a year with political motives, give Bangladesh a bad name. The current ambitious, ruthless and morally indifferent political leaders need to be socialised to the values of tolerance, moderation and service to the people.

Concluding observations

We are not born tolerant, but must learn to be tolerant. Bangladesh has now entered a new phase of democratic politics where it has to deal with the "values and processes" that are essential for the consolidation of democracy. Tolerant politicians and people tend to make connections between principles and concrete situations, take multiple perspectives, and see alternative solutions to problems. Intolerants, on the other hand, face difficulties in relating principles to practice, and seeing beyond their own viewpoint. They often define problems in absolute terms, with clear 'right' or 'wrong'. Tolerance and Trust are, therefore, vital at this stage of Bangladesh's democratisation. It is in this context, intra and inter-party relations must take on new routes of cooperation, exchange and mutuality of interests. If these are not forthcoming, if political parties continue to clash and thrive on conflicts, the foundation of democracy will collapse. People will increasingly loose freedom, and live in uncertainty and fear in a 'degraded democracy'.

Dr. M. Ataur Rahman is Professor of Political Science and Chairman, Centre for Governance Studies, University of Dhaka.