Editorial
There is but one 'brand' of democracy
Differences lie in the form of practicing it
The suggestion of the chief of army staff, of formulating a Bangladeshi brand of democracy for the country, in his book launching ceremony on Wednesday, has attracted our attention.
We do not feel that that there is anything wrong with democracy per se in Bangladesh and would like to assert that there is but only one form of democracy, which has a universal character. If there is any variance it is in the political structure or institutions that give shape to it. Democracy is a concept, and in military parlance 'operationalisation' of that concept may vary from country to country. For example, there is the presidential and parliamentary form of government, bicameral or unicameral legislature, varying degree of power of the head of government, different measures of checks and balances, variation of power between the judicial, executive and the legislative branches of the state, and many such differences. These are not "different brands of democracy" but different political structures that have been chosen to practice democracy, which we repeat is one and universal.
We would like to believe that what the army chief was trying to convey are the flaws of democracy as we practised it, and not so much the concept itself. He makes mention of buying of votes and of the elected representatives visiting their constituencies but only once in five years and that too just before the election. But is it the fault of democracy or of the people who are supposed to make it purposeful? We have examples, by the same token, of MPs visiting their constituencies every week and some staying permanently in their constituencies. Why pick on the worst to prove a particular point of view?
He also spoke about the PM being all powerful. May we ask, is it the fault of democracy that we have had prime ministers behaving in the most imperious manner? Is it not more the fault of our institutions that have failed to exercise the necessary checks and balances that they are capable of doing but failed to do?
What perhaps the CAS was trying to convey is that there is need for political reform that would prevent aberration of the concept of democracy by the people's representatives and those who are supposed to ensure that democracy in all its aspects is practiced. Political reform and strengthening of the political institutions are something that this paper, along with the members of civil society, has been trying to bring about in the last several years. We do not need a "Bangladeshi brand of democracy"; we just need to implement it in the form that is universally practiced today.
We would like to put on record that the CAS has earned tremendous goodwill by his unequivocal assertion for democracy, election, and political reform that can make democracy work. He has also earned respect by his continuous dismissal of any suggestion of the army's involvement in politics. We would not like that to be spoiled by remarks that confuse matters.
We repeat, the fault is not with democracy, but the way we practiced it in the past. So correct the practice and not democracy.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments