While India established strong democratic traditions, Pakistan faced difficulties in forming a stable government and, eventually, the military stepped in. Differences between the two wings grew, and relations got bitter. Religion was not a strong enough reason to bridge the physical distance and the cultural divide. After almost a quarter century of uneasy relationship, discrimination and disappointments, a new state emerged in 1971.

The struggle for independence was a popular one and was successful in a relatively short period of nine months, but at a very high cost in life and property. The people were euphoric and had visions of a bright future. After more than thirty-five years, we are not yet sure of how many of our expectations and goals we have realized.

Achieving stability and establishing democratic traditions proved elusive. On paper the country is democratic, but are we really so in practice? We have elections, people vote, and with high hopes, we see governments being formed. Soon thereafter, people become disappointed, movements take place, police go into action, casualties occur, and governments fall or are discredited. New elections, new governments, familiar faces, and the same old disappointments. The cycle has become all too familiar.

Successive governments have promised us the moon, but failed to deliver and live up to the expectations beyond the first few months in office. Why is it that after more than thirty-five years of freedom, we are yet to enjoy stability and progress? Why is it that political parties and individuals are all ardent supporters of democracy but, as a nation, we are unable to make it work?

It is, indeed, a paradox.

In the geographical area that makes up Bangladesh today we were always considered difficult people to rule, a tribute to our independent spirit. This land has nourished many enlightened leaders who rose up against tyranny and oppression. We have always been active for our rights and, as we progressed through the twentieth century, Bengalis were always in the forefront of political thinking. Leaders like H S Suhrawardy, A K Fazlul Haque, Moulana Bhashani and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became synonymous with Bengali nationalism.

In East Pakistan, the language movement in 1952 united all Bengalis in demanding recognition for Bangla as the state language. It was the same spirit that led us to protest against the domination by the minority, and disproportionate share of development. Our aspirations were modest but disappointments grew, and things came to a head in 1970.

Sheikh Mujib led the Awami League to a majority in elections, but was prevented from forming a government. Instead, the Pakistani army was let loose in a reign of terror. The genocide in 1971 was a shameful chapter for humanity, and only inspired the Bengalis to be single-minded in their resolve to be independent.

After a tenacious resistance, untold sacrifices, and on the ruins of a devastated economy and a shattered infrastructure, a new nation emerged. As an independent nation, our democratic spirit prevailed, but our experience with democratic practice fell far short of expectations.

Now that we had become independent, the political culture needed to shift gear and review priorities. Unfortunately, one government gave way to another, and the changes were anything but peaceful. United in opposition, we were now divided in freedom. We had inherited a political culture which encouraged massive showdowns, fiery speeches, hartals, work stoppages, vehicle burning, blockades, and sit-ins to achieve political ends, irrespective of the cost to the nation. The party in power always criticised this, and the parties out of power always resorted to it.

Hartals may be damaging for the economy, but the parties consider it a right and a politically legitimate weapon. Any loss is considered as inconsequential for the greater cause. This is the commonly accepted view of all political parties whenever they are out of power, but when they are in power, they want to crush it with force if need be.

Out of this mistrust, the concept of a caretaker government was born. A caretaker government is a novel idea, but for how long? How long before this is also compromised and discarded? One sometimes wonders if the system is at fault, or the peoples' choice of their leaders.

Unfortunately, we also do not subscribe to the view that the opposition has an important role to play. The opposition opposes everything, and the ruling party always tries to prove that it is always right. The opposition often opposes for the sake of opposition, and the ruling party often disregards the opposition simply because they have a majority. This attitude benefits none, and only undermines the spirit of democracy to the detriment of the nation and also of the parties.

Bangladesh has held several elections, but the only election Bengalis are nostalgic about is the one held in 1970. The nation was united, we had a leader, and the demands were specific. Repression, genocide, mass exodus, and brutal military rule could not suppress the indomitable spirit of the Bengali nation. Yet, within a few years, everything was coming apart. The father of the nation was dead, and there was military rule in the country. Five years later another president was dead.

Slowly, a kind of stability and a quasi-democracy was established, but not for long. Gradually, dissatisfaction brought the political foes together to topple their common adversary, Ershad, in a massive show of popular protests, bringing the country to a standstill.

After the departure of President Ershad, another chapter in our history began. Since then, we have had three elections, each bringing a new government in power. There has been progress, but not up to the expectations of the people. The dark reality is that an election in Bangladesh has become big business.

Today, it is money and muscle power that is needed to contest and win elections. A candidate has to pay hefty sums to secure party nomination, and spend another hefty amount to contest elections. As and when one gets elected, his first priority is to recover his investment.

Political candidates have understood this, and have made the system convenient so that one is able to do so. The media has exposed where the priorities of our lawmakers lie. Corrupt individuals have undermined the system and, in the process, the electorate has also been generally corrupted.

Even in such a pessimistic scenario, in towns and villages, people sit in roadside cafes and tea stalls and carry out a post-mortem of the latest news in the daily papers, praying and hoping for better days to come. All of them are hoping against hope that tomorrow will be a more promising day.

They have been disappointed before, but they have not given up hope. They expect democracy to deliver some day. Meanwhile, the media continues to reveal new stories of corruption of the lawmakers and our leaders; the same ones to whom we had trusted the future of this nation. Everyone was aware that there was corruption, but the extent has surprised us all.

Corruption is bad, but what is more disappointing is that, in the process, institutions have also been corrupted. What we are reading in the daily newspapers is undermining our trust in our lawmakers and also in democracy. There is nothing wrong with democracy per se, but with the people whom we trust to make it work.

Unfortunately, the individuals who were trusted with guiding the destiny of the nation did not measure up to it. Worse still, many of the same lawmakers will possibly be returned to parliament in future. Such is the power of money in our politics.

Democracy is not only about holding elections, but also about respecting the rights of individuals and making progress a viable reality. It is about accountability and putting the nation before self. It is the tragedy of our people that, while being acutely aware of the benefits of democracy, we are unable to hold our leaders accountable.

We have seen governments which disregard the opposition, making it a tame one or one which is opposed to everything. Maybe we have got our understanding of democracy wrong. Is it only limited to our right to vote, or is it also about respecting the right of others to vote freely? Is it also about voting for the right people good enough to be our leaders? If so, then we must choose people who can collectively lead the country along the road to stability and progress.

Democracy is not limited to using the majority to come to power, but is also about sagaciously using the power for the welfare of the majority. This is what every candidate promises but cares little about, and conveniently forgets after elections are over.

There are no credible signs that things are likely to improve anytime soon. The parties are talking of internal reforms to be more democratic, but it is not yet clear how committed they are, and whether democracy will be a factor in their decision making. Will the process be transparent, and the reforms meaningful? Will there be dialogue among the parties? The issue has become such a burning one that the major parties are being forced by circumstances to bring about changes. We have to wait awhile before we know what these changes are going to be.

The preliminary signs make us cautiously optimistic, and yet not so. The curse of our democracy is that we have the body of democracy but the soul is missing. The leaders of the major parties are often not on talking terms, and the atmosphere in parliament is neither congenial nor constructive for meaningful discussion of national issues and finding acceptable solutions.

The political parties continue to be blame-oriented rather than progress-oriented. There is no vision for the nation. Do we know where our priorities lie? There are a host of other questions to which none of the parties has any definite answer. Yet they make promises, which even they know they cannot keep.

Meanwhile, the nation and the people remain anxious and expectant, but the future at this point in time remains uncertain. Given this scenario, when can we expect to be ready for elections and meaningful democracy?

If not now, when? If not under these leaders then under whom? With so much fervour and commitment to democracy, there was expectation that now there would be stability, and that democracy was on firm ground. Alas! That was not to be. It seems that we may be firm advocates of democracy, but we cannot make it work.

Air Vice Marshal M Rafiqul Islam NDU, psc is former Chief of Air Staff of Bangladesh Air Force and former Managing Director of Bangladesh Biman.