Deconstructing democracy
IT is not unusual for people in Bangladesh to have politicians, erudite scholars and, surprisingly, men in khaki inflict their ideas about democracy on them. Not very long ago our curiosity was tickled by an army chief's suggestion of an indigenous form of democracy for Bangladesh. That was not surprising, come as it did in the wake of the new dispensation brought about by the changeover of 1/11. What was, however, surprising was the chorus of support lent to the idea by some scholars and even some civil society personages. And no sooner was the idea articulated than it was shot down.
And now we are hearing from some quarters in the country about democracy versus development, and about which one should take priority. Although there is a corpus of literature in the world on the subject, it is only after the January 5 elections that one is hearing the issue being bandied about in Bangladesh. The badly scripted narratives espouse the cause of development, which, according to the protagonists, should be our prime concern, but which is often stifled by political disturbances. And, since in a democratic environment we are prone to violence, the less of democracy we have the better for the country's development. This ludicrous argument is being touted as a justification for the January 5 election.
That perception is shared by outsiders too, which has been amply expressed in the Economist's comment in an article entitled, 'One and Only One' carried in its latest edition which states: “After a nervous start and amid calls for fresh polls, her government has hit its stride. Some sympathisers argue that Sheikh Hasina's rule is justified, if only because of her success in developing the economy.”
The long and short of the argument is that since there is an apparent calm in the country's political arena and since economic indices are showing upward trend like, for example, availability of eggs per head has doubled, (one is not sure if it is due to the increase in purchasing power of the people or fecundity of hens) the status quo should continue. And they also cite the recognition by most countries of this regime in spite of the faulty elections. To back up their argument they promptly cite examples of several South and East Asian countries, which have for good part of their history been a non-pluralistic society and which boast of a robust economy with five figure per capita income. One fears that these arguments may again be used for similar modus of election in future too. These utterances are ominous.
These are fallacious arguments. No doubt some countries with 'authoritarian democracy' have done considerably better than we have but there were other concomitant factors that have propelled economic growth there. But can we say that it would not have been better if there were unfettered politics in those countries?
It is true that politically, these countries, during their rapid economic boom, had various kinds of authoritarian regime, but are we then to accept that since martial law regimes saw little political disturbances and considerable development, despotic rule should be preferable to democratic politics? Does international recognition lend moral validity to martial regimes or justify undemocratic arrangements? Are we to accept that autocracy is the best path to development? Are these arguments signs of the beginning of the end of pluralistic politics in this country?
Autocratic disposition generates a psyche among the ruling group of not only invincibility but a couldn't-care-less attitude that makes them dispense with the need for accountability to the people or probity and transparency in actions.
One doesn't have to read the reports of human rights bodies or the mention of the issue in the European Parliament to fathom the gravity of the situation. Where is the accountability when reportedly in the last eight months only there were 116 encounter killings?
The manner and speed with which the broadcasting policy was formulated, and that too without appropriate laws for its implementation being in place, leave a big question mark on the government's attitude towards the media. And the prospect of the grip on the media getting even tighter is strengthened by the plan to amend the Press Council Act to install some stringent provisions in it, to say nothing of the 16th Constitutional Amendment.
Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. And it must take precedence over any other considerations. It is thus distressing to see a party which had dedicated all its energy during the years under Pakistan to establishing democracy and rights of the people should choose to enact such retrogressive policies and laws which are against the very essence of the causes it had fought for. And that makes their expressed commitment to democracy sound hollow.
The writer is Editor, OP-Ed and Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.
Comments