Post Breakfast
Hidden hunger, anger, dreams and democracy
SOME intellectuals from the western world have at times suggested that democracy; democratic norms and democratic behaviour are not always synonymous with Islam and Muslim countries. A few of these analysts have also pointed out that real democracy and associated freedom have really been enjoyed by Muslims more in non-Muslim environment rather than in typical Muslim states. In this context, they have referred to democratic rights enjoyed by Muslims within United States, in United Kingdom, in India, in Europe and even in Israel. They have compared such enjoyment of rights and the ability to seek functional legal redress with what has been happening in Pakistan and in almost all the Muslim countries in the Arab world and in Africa.
These observations, to say the least, would appear to be controversial. I know that many of the readers will immediately point out that equity and equality of opportunity are two fundamental aspects that characterise Islam. They will also note that democracy has been practiced in many Muslim countries. They will refer to Indonesia, to Bangladesh, to Turkey and also now to Pakistan. I will, of course, agree with them. However, at the same time, I will point out that our behaviour as a democratic country has not always followed the expected norms, mostly due to partisanship, absence of accountability, lack of transparency in decision-making and flouting of the due process of law (by political parties while in office). This has eventually led to corruption, abuse of power and inept governance.
I have always believed in self-examination. This permits a person to be objective and discern faults that need to be addressed. This principle also applies in the case of a country, particularly a state like Bangladesh that is trying to re-discover the essential elements associated with democracy.
In terms of political science, our population of nearly 150 million is now living in a state of suspended non-political animation. We have had, since 1991, a turbulent fifteen years and odd months of parliamentary democracy, and are now passing through an interim administrative arrangement that is seeking to correct the parameters, strengthen the pillars required for a functional democratic edifice, and create a level playing field. It is generally agreed that these reforms are required so that a free, fair, credible and acceptable election can be held.
Bangladesh is presently passing through an interesting period. This political experiment is being carefully monitored both in the print media as well as in almost all the householdsboth urban and rural. Every act of the Election Commission, any statement by the chief adviser, the chief election commissioner or the chief of army staff becomes the focal point of discussion. There are, subsequently, responses from different political parties. The electronic media participates in this exercise with great ardor, and "talk-shows", even though mostly "non-live" in character, analyse every aspect of any given situation. The continued detention and trial of the political leaders of the Awami League and the BNP, the rise in prices of essentials, lack of water, gas and electricity\-- all juxtapose together to add to the media drama.
The whole nation is waiting for the forthcoming general election. Every month we follow with care numbers associated with voter registration or issue of ID cards. The common masses are also eager to find out when the emergency will be lifted and the election schedule announced. They want to know when political activity can emerge from the cold and resume in the open, at all levels, not just in Dhaka. They have been patient for a long time, longer than at any other time in the short history of our country. Despite evidence of "hidden-hunger" (or starvation, to put it bluntly), and economic inactivity and torpor, they have held themselves back.
In this context, they, despite potential "hidden anger," have shown great maturity and deserve appreciation. I have talked to many in rural areas and almost all of them have remarked that there is need to wait to get a good "version" of democracy where their fundamental rights and opportunities will be ensured in the future, not gobbled up by unscrupulous politicians. In effect, they are referring to a "hidden dream" that they associate with a functioning democracy.
One can only hope that our politicians understand that our ordinary people, this time round, not only want free and fair elections both at the local government and national levels, but also a future democratic arrangement where their aspirations will be met and protected.
Defining democracy is very difficult. Robert Dahl has generally conceptualised it as the embodiment of the notions of equality, liberty and the rule of law through the combination of norms, institutions, procedures and/or outcomes. Michael Freedom, on the other hand, has described the democratic system as "normatively and philosophically desirable" and one that promotes human freedom and human rights, limits the arbitrary and dangerous power of the state, and arguably fosters more peaceful relation between states.
Democracy is also supposed to promote tolerance and economic growth, and create mechanisms for peaceful conflict resolution within state and within the region. A large measure of success in this regard, however, depends not only in the manner in which democracy is ushered into the state system (the nature of the election and the electoral process) but also on the role played by its principal stakeholdersthe political parties themselves.
Now, here is the rub (as Shakespeare would have put it) in the case of Bangladesh and its quest and dream of effective, functional democratic multi-party political governance. My concern is whether our political parties are ready to tackle all the issues that they will inherit after the election. Do they understand that after 1/11, as it is popularly known, the expectation threshold has climbed higher. The people have observed how the mighty have fallen, been sentenced to prison and how many so-called leaders of the people have fled abroad to avoid incarceration.
I am afraid that our politicians are far too engrossed talking superficially about reforms, fighting amongst themselves and looking over their shoulders to see if they have been charge-sheeted on grounds of extortion/corruption. I wonder if think-tanks of political parties are spending sufficient time planning how to tackle, in the future, extremism, fundamentalism, terrorism; food shortages, budget deficits (due to enhanced prices of importing oil, commodities and capital machineries) and power shortages.
Our politicians have to understand today, there are great hopes interwoven with the democratic dream.
Democracy does not just mean winning an election and forming a government. There is also a broader and pragmatic picture to the electoral process. It deals with re-calibrating the mind-set and getting rid of emotional partisan baggage. It is also the willingness to be accountable to other members within the Parliament and also to the common people who sent them there.
One anticipates that the political parties will, in the near future, be concentrating on the forthcoming election and organising their campaigns. However, one can only hope that an important part of this process will be the preparation of their respective manifestos. There is a lot of work to be done, and sitting in a dialogue with the government is not the most significant one. The political parties need to draft and finalise their anticipated courses of action with regard to how they intend to handle in the future, issues like due process of law, independence of the judiciary, implementation of reforms within the police and other law enforcement agencies, creation of a functional, autonomous National Human Rights Commission, and the appointment of a non-partisan, non-political Ombudsman.
The political parties also need to sit down and prepare blueprints as to the methods by which they will reduce poverty, increase rural employment and economic opportunities, arrange credit extension for the marginalised, better utilise growing remittances from our expatriates, provide wider healthcare for the rural community and those living in slums in the urban areas, ensure vocational training and functional education for those living in rural areas (thereby providing alternatives to mere learning of religious text by rote in madrasas), add to capacity in terms of infrastructure and encourage foreign direct investment.
Each political party must also join in the consensus of making the Parliament more functional through effective use of parliamentary sub-committees and participatory engagement. These committees can then act as "watch-dogs" and that, in turn, will improve governance, transparency and accountability. It might be useful in this regard to consider the revolutionary concept of nominating as chairman of each committee, a representative from the parties in the opposition in the Parliament. In similar vein, the speaker of the house could be selected from among the members in the Sangshad belonging to the largest party in the opposition. This will be interpreted as trust and act as a confidence building measure. This will also facilitate objective discussion of issues on the floor of the house, instead of significant controversial issues being swept under the carpet. We have already seen the harm that a partial speaker can do to democracy during the last tenure of government.
The political parties also have to understand that there are certain national issues that need to be treated on a bi-partisan basis. That should include important elements within the matrix of foreign policy (regarding national interests), water management and fighting terrorism. Democracy is not just the holding of an election. It is much more. It requires correct political will to be sustained.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments