Strategically Speaking
It's not the time to tinker with new ideas
IDEAS are pouring forth as to what form of government is best for the country. We are also hearing people talk about the imperatives of enforcing a balance between the president and the prime minister. Then we have a few others articulating the need to achieve a balanced government.
In the midst of all these, many see unlimited merits in a national government, which they feel is the only arrangement capable of tiding over the current situation. Some are taking this opportunity to depict the National Security Council as a phantom that, if setup, will bring only evil for the country -- that it might affect democracy adversely.
And very recently, the chief of army staff (CAS) has expressed the need of such a system that would prevent misuse of power -- an expectation that is fairly representative of the wishes of the large majority of Bangladeshis. However, there is one point that is normally overlooked when one talks about misuse or abuse of power. And which is, there is no cognisable correlation between the systems of government that we chose for ourselves and the exercise of power by those we elect to run that system.
And why are so many different ideas being bandied about by different quarters? This, I feel, is a reflection of uncertainty in the minds of many, and the welter of thoughts is an attempt on the part of those who are capable of thinking but are not quite in a position to do, to provide food for thought, one presumes, for those who can do but do not quite have the time to think.
The uncertainty stems from the experience of the past -- an experience that one would not like to suffer again. The hope is for a reformed democratic system, and the rider is that the change must be brought about without unnecessary delay.
We shall address the idea of national government and balance of power, and so forth, later. As for now, I would like to deal with a very recent article in a Bangla daily by an eminent professor for whom I have the deepest admiration because of his forthrightness and candour. I have been immensely fascinated by the lengthy piece. He has taken the trouble of airing his views on the type of government Bangladesh should have.
Interestingly, his main preoccupation is neither politics nor economics, but one presumes, like all other countrymen of his, he has been deeply affected by both, and by the failure of the current system (parliamentary) to deliver. To him the parliamentary system is the second best option, and in his arguments he withholds no merit of the presidential system in his attempt to convince the readers that the country should better adopt it, if it wants to benefit from the boon of democracy.
It is worth analysing his views. The professor sounds very confident when he says that a presidential system would have spared the dismal situation that we are now facing. We have slavishly tried to replicate the British system, reflecting the psychological servility that still drives our thoughts, according to him. One would like to ask, if the system could deliver for Britain, why has it failed us? The fault, therefore, lies not in the system itself but in the way we operate it. Therefore, if we do not improve the quality of the operators that will run the system, no matter what the system is, we will never benefit from it.
The author suggests that intolerant disposition of the Bengalees, their weak physique and the racial and ethnological makeup, do not dispose them well towards a parliamentary form of government. A flawed argument, I feel, since these very characteristics of the Bengalees would be equally dysfunctional in the case of a presidential form of government too.
The professor also suggests that a presidential form is more competent (he does not explain how) to handle disorderly situations better, which to me appears to be an extraordinary observation. One wonders whether his remarks occur from his normative experience, because I find it hard to draw a link between the systems of government in a democratic order and the ability to handle turmoil. I suggest that it is very much the leadership and the institutions that play the vital role in tackling situations, irrespective of the type of government.
What is disappointing is the impression he conveys about the incapability of Bengalees to provide collective wisdom in the running of the state, and because of the weak socio-political structure, an organisation run by a CEO, rather than by a General Secretary, according to the metaphor he uses for a presidential and parliamentary form respectively, would serve us best.
Surely, the professor cannot be unaware of the fact that even a CEO these days goes by the inputs provided by the collective wisdom from various stations of his unit, which, insofar as it relates to politics is called representative and participatory democracy.
I fear that instead of preventing democracy becoming an autocratic rule his suggestions would further enhance the scope of emergence of elected autocrats.
We have had a presidential system before, but that was the time of military and pseudo-military rule. A presidential system has many trappings and the frills are very attractive. The BNP, I have it on very dependable source, had opted for the parliamentary system only after the party leader and prospective prime minister was assured that she would be provided with all the paraphernalia as the PM that a president is provided with. That is why certain military setups were reorganised in a way that would, for example, allow the PM the services of the PGR, something that is reserved exclusively for the sovereign i.e. the president of Bangladesh.
If the parliamentary system has failed to deliver, it is not the system but those who ran it that must take the blame. It is the mindset that drives the leader, and no matter what system is in vogue, it will fail if the intention is dishonest and the leader is incompetent.
We all want a system that would be balanced and prevent misuse of power. Such a system will have to evolve from the ones we have in place now. And that would require the participation of the political parties, since it involves reform of the political parties too. More importantly, the system we want to have can only be determined by the elected representatives of the people. Let them seek the people's mandate on whatever changes they want to bring about. Only then would the exercise assume credibility and have greater chances of success, rather than one that is imposed.
It is not the time to tinker with new ideas. We must also guard against situations that might cause a political vacuum which has not been foreseen and cannot be addressed by the provisions of the Constitution. A political vacuum can be tackled only by stopgap measures. This certainly cannot be good for democracy in Bangladesh.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments