Opinion
"The Present Political Impasse: The Way Out"
I would like to congratulate Mr Enam A Chaudhury for his article under the above heading published in The Daily Star on 12 December, 1999. As a way out of the present political impasse he has given two suggestions e.g. (a) all elections, both national and local should be held under a caretaker government and (b) there should be discussions and consultations among the political parties "to find out ways of avoiding bloody confrontations, of shunning destructive hartals, of re-establishing shattered confidence in democratic process and elections."
These recommendations imply that people have lost their faith in the present democratic process as practiced by the political parties in Bangladesh. This seems to be the case if one looks at the letters opinions and articles published in the newspapers. Some time ago, I saw a letter from an expatriate Bangladeshi in the letter column of The Daily Star suggesting that we should have a caretaker government for the next five years.
What is the reason for this lack of confidence in our democratic process?
After thousands of years of evolution of human society, the democratic form of government has been adjudged to be the best. Such governments are functioning smoothly in many parts of the world. Then why is it that it doesn't work in our country although we have all the paraphernalia of a democratic form of government? There is a saying that people get the government they deserve. If we accept this then we should have no cause for complain because we deserve what we are now having. So why bother? But is it really the case? Do the people of our country deserve what we now have? Whether we deserve it or not, there is no doubt that the people are not satisfied with what is going on in our country in the name of democracy. Being dissatisfied with the state of affairs, people have been groping for good governance. The situation has reached such an extent that even our foreign development partners have started worrying about it.
About a couple of years ago, the UNDP in association with others held a seminar in Dhaka on good governance in Bangladesh. In that seminar which was participated, among others, by the leaders of different political parties it was reportedly stated by no other than a leading political personality of our country that our present political culture is not conducive to good governance. This seems to be the correct diagnosis and this is the crux of the problem.
Coming to the recommendation of Mr Chaudhury that all elections should be held under a caretaker government, I would like to say that Bangladesh has perhaps created a precedent by making constitutional provision for holding national elections under a caretaker government. It was necessary in the context of Bangladeshi style of politics as people apprehended that the party in power would not be fair and impartial in conducting the elections. It may be of interest to mention here that the movement for a caretaker government was spearheaded by the political parties themselves although it implies a sad reflection on the ability of a political party to perform while in office. Now Mr Chaudhury suggests that not only the national elections but all the local elections should be held under a caretaker government and a formula has to be found out by which no by-elections would be held by the party in power.
One can understand the logic behind this suggestion. But we should not overlook the fact that election is not an end in itself rather it is a means to an end - the end being good governance as per the wishes of the majority of the people. Moreover, elections are only a very small part of the whole gamut of governmental functions. If one cannot trust the government for holding even a local election, by what logic one can trust the same government for performing all the other important national tasks during it's five year tenure? Mr Enam Chaudhury says "... it has been experienced under all governments., that during elections undue influences are exerted and the permanent administrative machinery utilised by the party in power." Does he mean to say that this happens only during election time and not in other times? The common perception is that this is happening all the time and that is one of the reasons for the people's dissatisfaction with the political process in our country.
This brings me to the other recommendation of Mr Chaudhury. He has suggested that there should be discussions and consultations among the political parties to avoid bloody confrontation, etc. This is a very good suggestion but how do you implement it? Many people have been suggesting this since long but without any tangible result. The high office of the Honourable President of the country made a number of public statements on the need for a dialogue among the political parties regarding student politics and campus violence to arrive at an agreed solution. But has there been any result?
What I would like to say is that holding of elections under a caretaker government may seem to offer a remedy of sorts but in the larger context it is no remedy as long as we do not find ways and means to change/ improve the political culture of our country. Left to themselves the political parties are not expected to change their ways. They are not likely to enter into a meaningful dialogue for arriving at a consensus. Capturing power and retaining power by any means seem to be their main occupation. This attitude leads to the acute confrontation in politics as a result of which the interest of the people and the country at large and the age old concepts of neutrality, justice and fairplay are relegated to the back seat.
The big question is - what is the way out? The answer is not far to seek. The answer was hinted at in the UNDP seminar mentioned above, it is implied in the article of Mr Enam Chaudhury and is perhaps in the mind of many people. We should change our political culture. Two key elements of our present political culture which seem to be the root cause of our problems have rightly been mentioned by him e.g. - (a) politics of confrontation and (b) undue political influence on administration. These two elements are also somewhat inter-linked. By confrontation in politics we mean the unhealthy confrontational relationship between the party in power and the parties in the opposition. By undue political influence we mean the alleged undue influence exerted by the functionaries of the party in power on the administration to promote their party interests. Such influence on the administration obviously goes against the interest of the parties in the opposition thereby further accentuating the existing confrontation between them.
There are two other elements in our political culture which also contribute to the present unhealthy scenario in national politics. These are the alleged linkages between the political parties (both in power and in the opposition) and the people having muscle power and black money. If we really want to come out of the present political turmoil in our country we should evolve a new political culture which will be free from all these undesirable elements. In the present circumstances it definitely looks like a pipe dream or a pious wish. But there is a saying that if there is a will there is a way. If by any means we can develop a strong will then it should not be difficult to find a way.
We, Bangladeshis are not inferior to anybody in the world in intelligence and also in political consciousness and so it should not be an impossible task. The need of the hour is for someone to take the leadership role to do a job which the political leaders would not do or are not able to do in the given circumstances. I would, therefore, venture to suggest that the leaders of the civil society particularly the legal and constitutional experts who are not actively involved in politics should take the initiative and try to do this difficult job in the interest of the country and its people. A series of discussion meetings may be arranged to invite suggestions and then formulate concrete recommendations to improve the political culture of our country. This may involve changing some rules and regulations and perhaps some constitutional provisions. After a set of recommendations which are generally acceptable to the civil society, a civil movement may be launched to win over support for the same from the people at large to create a strong popular will and then persuade the political parties to accept these recommendations which may be subsequently formalised and approved in the parliament.
The Daily Star has taken laudable initiative in arranging round-table on many important matters. They may also consider holding discussion meetings on this subject. If, by some stroke of luck, we could evolve a decent and acceptable political culture by which we can avoid the present destructive and confrontational relationship among the political parties and also the undue interference of politics in administration then there will be no need of a caretaker government to conduct national or local elections and the people would not mind having elections under a political government as happens in other civilised countries.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments