Going Deeper
Facing post-transition challenges
DEMOCRACY," writes Francis Fukuyama, "is the right held universally by all citizens to have a share of political power that is the right of all citizens to vote and participate in politics. The right to participate in political power can be thought of as yet another liberal right-- indeed the most important one -- and it for this reason that liberalism has been closely associated historically with democracy."
Thomas Jefferson asserted in the Declaration of Independence the importance of "the right of the people to alter or abolish (government) and to institute new government." It is said that the most important thing that a constitution constitutes is neither of the national government nor even the supreme law but that of one sovereign national people who may alter their government or supreme law at will.
Given the successful practice of democracy in India since independence from British rule, former colonies regaining independence from colonial masters were naturally attracted to this form of government that at least in theory gave power to the people. Some countries in our neighbourhood have been more successful than others. But politics aside, people in Bangladesh at the moment are equally anxious about the rise in the price of essentials as they are about the re-establishment of democracy. The people, however, do not want to be showered with "guided democracy" by a "moderate oligarchy," as was the case in Pakistan, who do not have to account for their actions.
In developed countries, the electorate is acutely aware of the candidates' position on incomes, tax, holiday, health facilities, and educational opportunities for their children as well as of national security so that their way of life is not threatened in choosing their representatives to the presidency and other political offices.
This awareness of material well being of the people may be seen as mercantile and devoid of idealism. Some political scientists would argue that mature societies are more likely to successfully practice democratic norms than those who do not fall into this category.
Professor Adrian Leftwich quotes G.Kitching's observation that "materially poor societies cannot produce the democratic life which is an essential pre-requisite for the creation of socialist democracies." Only economic growth through industrialisation, insists Leftwich, can provide the platform on which democratic values, institutions, and process can be sustained.
This argument that democratic political development with a combination of economic, social and cultural factors are unlikely to exist in underdeveloped economies is supported by S. M. Lipset. One can also discern in such argument the validity of the preconditions that Francis Fukuyama thinks are necessary for sustaining the democratic process, the most important being a reasonably high level of economic development.
Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and South Korea are cases in point. But then it has been pointed out that these countries represent only 2% of the total population of the South and that while they turned into tigers by adopting structural adjustment programs and orthodox perspective of development -- generation of economic growth through promotion of free-market principles -- most of the followers of these principles turned into turkeys instead of tigers.
One may wonder whether religion can act as a barrier to the spread of democracy. Skepticism has been expressed about Samuel Huntington's "fourth wave of democracy" in the Greater Middle East spurred by President Bush's promise to do so in the light of democracy deficit in most of the members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference.
Western skepticism about sustainable democracy in the Muslim countries is not only due to the comparatively low level of economic development, but also due to their suspicion, gained on the ground, that Islam does not subscribe to the principle of giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. In other words, the separation of the church and the temporal power is blurred in Muslim countries.
Beside historical rivalry between Muslims and Christians, a thesis successfully propagated by Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis, the struggle between Muslims and Christians started with the first Arab incursions in the 8th century and remained implacable to the final Turkish retreat in the 20th century as testimony to Islam's refusal to accept Christianity as an equal.
Therefore, writes Lewis in his book The Crisis of Islam, the American president is the successor in the long line of rulers from the Byzantine emperors of Constantinople, the Holy Roman Emperors of Vienna and all who represent the "land of the unbelievers."
Samuel Huntington appears to agree with Lewis's thesis that the West is "facing a need and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilisations -- the perhaps irrational but historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, on secular present, and worldwide expansion of both."
It is doubtful that in the absence of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that the writings of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington would have received such width of attention on the part of the Western policy-makers, particularly of the Bush administration.
While it can be argued that in the face of phenomenal growth registered by China, South Korea (before its transition to democracy), Taiwan, and Singapore (democratic credentials questioned by some) embracing authoritarian political system but adopting free market economic policies that for developing countries, unfamiliar with liberal political thoughts and their practices, a type of "guided democracy" favoured by the former Pakistani President Parvez Musharraf would be ideal.
But then, with the end of the Cold War, the Western powers who had promoted authoritarian rulers in many developing countries dictated by the dynamics of the US-Soviet tensions are now themselves impatient to abandon their support of such a system. It is no longer fashionable to embark on an ideological war because communism, except for some pockets still harboring communist practices, has virtually gone with the wind.
Besides, the developed countries have come to realise that it is better to allow all shades of opinion to flourish in pluralistic society than to adopt exclusionary policies about some opinions and forces, because stifling some while promoting other strands of thought may be inimical to the security of the developed countries.
One hopes that the future leaders of Bangladesh who would emerge following the elections and would be required to take the country to a higher level of socio-economic development would remain faithful to the precepts of democracy and would also be alive to the realities of the present global political order while dealing with the problems facing the people.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments