Is there a democrat in the house?

This statement will perhaps come as something of a shock to the sensible and non-partisan general public who, despite being let down by it time and again, retain a stubborn respect for the democratic tradition. Unfortunately, for the good people of Bangladesh, their touching faith in the value of democracy does not seem to be shared by the political elite in the administration or the opposition.

Let me clarify. What I mean to say is that the political leadership in this country (and this includes those not presently in power) are partisans in the extreme. For the most part, they exhibit a level of ideological discipline or intellectual dishonesty (however you wish to look at it) that is stunning in its consistency. They hew faithfully to the party line and rarely concede that the opposing side is anything other than the embodiment of evil.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Deep down, most of these people would rather a situation where their side wins all the time than a situation where power changes hands periodically.

Most BNP politicians would probably admit that they think that the AL is simply beyond the pale and that the ideal situation would be for the BNP to rule indefinitely if the alternative was that the AL were to get in once in a while.

The same goes for the AL in reverse. I would wager good money that most AL politicians would rather have the AL govern in perpetuity than to have to periodically suffer through BNP rule.

In the abstract, multi-party democracy sounds like a noble ideal, but in reality, if you think your side is right and the other side is wrong, why would you want anything other than one party rule?

This is nothing more than the logical corollary to thinking that your side is right and the other side is wrong -- and let's face it -- that is precisely what most of this country's politicians do think when it comes to politics.

They think the country would be better off if their side could rule indefinitely. When their side is in power things go right, good policies are enacted, poor policies of the past are banished.

When the other side is in power they immediately set about reversing all the good that has been achieved in the past five years and start leading the country in the wrong direction.

That being the case -- what BNPer worth his or her salt wouldn't wish for the BNP to stay in power for the next 100 years? It would certainly beat having the AL back in power.

And what self-respecting ALer wouldn't want to see the AL in power for the next 100 years? It certainly beats the hell out of letting the BNP get their hands on power once again.

So you see what I mean.

We might give lip service to the concept of multi-party democracy, but the truth is that for most politically inclined people, multi-party democracy and elections are an irritant -- something to be tolerated at best -- a hazard that has to be navigated -- a hindrance to good governance at worst.

In fact, in this country we make fewer bones about it than elsewhere.

Nowhere else does the triumphant party rule with such contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the minority. Not even the Great Divider George W. Bush is in our league when it comes to marginalising the opposition and governing as though the other side doesn't exist.

Nowhere else is such scant regard paid to the opposition who represent close to half of the people of the country.

That's why the struggle for power in Bangladesh is so vicious and uncompromising and why the accusations each side makes with respect to election reform and caretaker government law reform are actually all spot on.

The AL isn't interested so much in a fair system -- they just want to win. Well, of course they do.

Nor is the BNP much interested in continuing the grand tradition of the caretaker government that has served us so well in the past -- they just want to win too.

Does anyone for a moment doubt that if the situations were reversed that either party wouldn't be making the exact opposite claim?

Had the AL won the last election and were now sitting pretty in parliament, they would be the ones mouthing sanctimonious platitudes about the inviolability of the process and how well it has worked in the past.

Similarly, if the BNP were in opposition and facing the prospect of an election held under the auspices of a retired chief justice with ties to the AL who had got the job due to a constitutional amendment, they would be the ones screaming blue murder.

Neither party is interested in democracy per se. But even though our political leaders have so little respect for democracy in this country, they should have a little more.

Here is why. I think that the best understanding of the merits of democracy comes from an appreciation for the famous aphorism of the historian Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Simply put, the great merit of democracy is that it keeps one party or person from amassing too much power and the consequent dangers of such an accretion. The benefit of an opposition is that it keeps you honest. It acts as a check on the corrupting influence of power.

Therefore, even though we might in theory like to see our side rule unchallenged for the next 100 years, the reality is that this wouldn't be a good thing, because if they did then they would become corrupt and arrogant and non-responsive and everything would fall apart.

That's why even though you might despise either the AL or the BNP and everything one or the other party stands for, you should grudgingly concede that it is better that they come to power every once in a while than that your party rule unchallenged forever.

Be you staunch BNP or AL -- or JP or Jamaat for that matter -- remember that it is your opponents who keep you honest, and that without viable opposition you would rot from the inside out.

Simply put, no one benefits when one party dominates unchallenged.

This is the simple truth we would all do well to remember as we come upon the next elections.

One of the problems we have here in Bangladesh is our take-no-prisoners attitude towards politics. No genuine attempt is ever made to reach across the aisle to find common ground or to work with the opposing side rather than try to destroy it.

We seem to subscribe to the Conan the Barbarian view that the best thing in life is "to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Most politically-minded people go to bed dreaming of their enemies vanquished and a clean political canvass on which to reform and remake the country. But this is a dangerous and delusional vision and one that we must move beyond if we are ever to form a functioning polity.

Even though you might hate the other side with a passion and would secretly like nothing more than to see them all hanging upside down from their toes -- it's better that they exist and that they come to power every once in a while than that you be given free rein forever.

Sadly, I doubt that too many of our political leaders think this, and frankly, I suspect that not enough of the rest of us do either. But it's a point worth considering as we look forward to reforming the process over the coming year.

Trying to entrench a permanent majority will ultimately backfire on those who seemingly stand to benefit from such a realignment and the country as a whole.

This is the point of democracy. It's not just the only way of keeping tyrants at bay -- it's the only way to keep us from becoming tyrants ourselves.

Zafar Sobhan is an Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.