Dysfunctional democracy
THERE is very little to boast about what is passing off as democracy in Bangladesh. When 33 percent of the voters remain unrepresented in the parliament it is anything but democracy.
Public discourse on politics in the recent past has been focused on the need for a working democracy to be manifested in a vibrant parliament, which unfortunately has remained virtually non-functional with the main opposition boycotting it for a good part of its tenure since 1991.
There must be a feeling of déjà vu in the Awami League. In 2001 they did exactly the same, choosing not to take oath as MPs unless the "subtle rigging" they accused the establishment of was corrected. And the then general secretary of the Awami League demanded an entirely fresh election.
This was taken as a tit for tat for the BNP's parliament boycott when it was in the opposition between 1996 and 2001. We recount this merely to put the matter in perspective, to show that our democracy will remain half-baked unless the much-vaunted change in political culture is brought about. The immediate reaction of the losing party since the 1991 election had been to instantly reject the result when, in fact, introspection and evaluation of the causes of defeat rather rejection was what they should have employed their mind in.
They record of parliamentary boycott should shame anyone who takes pride as a democrat or a citizen of a democratic country.
The opposition had boycotted 521 out of a total 1,155 sittings during the 5th, 7th and 8th parliaments. The AL had chosen to abstain from the parliament for 135 out of a total of 400 sittings while in opposition from 1991 to 1996, an the BNP had done likewise between 1996 and 2001, when they boycotted 163 out of 382 sittings.
34 out of 71 sittings of the 9th parliament have been boycotted by the BNP when we were given to understand during the 2008 election campaign that it would not boycott parliament in future. Perhaps it was too sure of winning the election.
One was very happy to see the BNP join the first session of the current parliament. But then perhaps it had a sudden brainwave and realised that it was breaking with tradition by joining the parliament and decided to keep away on a very flimsy ground. And since then the BNP has been laying down conditions that have accreted over the last nine months.
We have not heard of a situation when people's representatives, chosen by them through a free and fair election, are putting preconditions for joining the parliament -- a responsibility they are promise-bound to the electorates to fulfill. The number of conditions stands at nine as of today, and it is very clear that the nature of the conditions is more party, rather than people, oriented.
Are we to understand that the issue of the BNP party chief's cantonment residence, whatever the legal merit or moral justification the BNP's stand on it might be, is more important than the pressing national issues? Is it not absurd that there is none to ventilate the views of the 33 percent of voters because their representatives would prefer to abstain on the ground that they have not been given the one extra seat that they wanted in the front row of the parliament?
It is a pity that people's interest has been given no priority at all when national issues were left unaddressed by the parliament. These matters were discussed everywhere except where these should have been debated first -- the parliament. Issues like Tipaimukh, the Asian Highway, transit, the visit of the foreign minister to India and the joint statement that followed, the so-called crossfire deaths, not to speak of matters related to the BDR killings and the galloping price hike, should have been thrashed out on the floor of the House. Talk shows and public statements do little justice to the people and the issues.
However, it would be crass injustice to put all the blame for the current situation at the door of the BNP and it alliance partners alone. The AL has reneged on many of its promises and it appears that the ruling alliance is quite happy to see the BNP out of parliament in spite of the public utterances they are making. Otherwise, they would have accepted the demand of the opposition for the sake of the people. And when the speaker says that the BNP should put their demands in the House what does he have to say for rejecting all the 29 call attention notices by the BNP? Perhaps the speaker does not want to be outdone, and wants to follow the tradition of his BNP predecessor in the 8th parliament, who treated the AL's call attention notices in the same manner.
This is not one's idea of participatory democracy; and we are deeply disappointed at how the parliament has functioned so far. The onus, we feel, is on the ruling party to make the parliament and democracy fully functional.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments