IT would only be fair to say that the just concluded general election of January 5 has been controversial. In fact, it may have given rise to many worries and failed to assuage the fears with regard to the process of peaceful transition of political power. Beyond that, acceptance of electoral irregularities and malpractices would have a deleterious effect on the body politic. Alleged impropriety in the national election contest would, without doubt, adversely affect the due process in the conduction of public affairs.
Resorting to polls for political and constitutional continuity bypassing constitutionalism could be fatal. This is because politicians have to secure conformity with not only the letter but also the spirit of constitutional framework. There is no denying that achieving the objective of substantial conformity with the constitutional directive is a tough challenge. However, one has to admit that constitutionalism has to become a living reality to the extent that the directives curb arbitrariness of discretion and are in fact observed by the wielders of political power.
The constitution, in addition to establishing different forms of accountability also creates ground rules in the form of laws, codes of practice and conventions for ensuring fair play at every level. Equally significant characteristic of constitutionalism is a degree of self-imposed restraint which operates beyond the text of the constitution and its attendant rules, especially on the part of political actors and state officials.
It needs to be stressed that constitutionalism could be established in a true sense when political behaviour is actually contained within certain boundaries. The rules need to embody a defensible constitutional morality which accords with principles of good governance. The constitution should represent a sufficiently accepted political settlement. There must also be a general adherence at all levels to the constitutional rules and the wider body of law.
Do we witness patron-client relations in our political discourse? Do we get a sense from political transaction that the stability of our society would unfailingly rely on never questioning the authority of those further up the hierarchy? As far as public officials are concerned, is it the reality that once in post, rather than insisting on performing statutory obligations to investigate and prosecute high ups, the official in question is naturally inclined to defer to superior authority?
Do we see an unsavoury relationship that unites politics and economics? Cynics say that political influence or power is ensuring access to wealth. The beneficiary or the client is providing the service that is contributing to the wealth of the powerful in which the client has often a proportional share. This is a symbiotic relationship in which each needs the other to derive the benefits they both receive. Such transaction, without doubt, is quite clearly contrary to traditional and formal ideas of constitutionalism. Are we, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to vote to secure the achievement of wider community goals and thus left restricted to ensure calculated individual gain at election time?
One has to agree that constitutionalism in Bangladesh stands seriously threatened from the convoluted use of religion by obscurantist elements. However, the common man who is deeply religious in his own way and wants an improvement in life, has always chosen the progressive, forward-looking, secular leaders and parties. He keeps religion and politics in separate boxes and believes that worldly affairs are too important to be left in the hands of the clergy. In fact, our problem is with the educated classes who are caught between the cross-currents of modernisation and obscurantism. Our thinking elite and the middle class have to appreciate the reality of nation-state, and must not be emotive and rhetorical about '' Ummah.”
The fundamental problem of constitutionalism in our situation has been that the key players have not accepted the rules of constitutionalism. In fact, the credibility of the entire structure has been called into question because the most influential actors who operate the levers of power have disturbingly breached the rules. There have been unsure attempts to engage the accountability mechanisms but in the process the authority of the constitution has been sadly dissipated.
A considered view is that attempts to achieve real progress in constitutionalism would be unlikely to succeed if we fail to address the mercenary nature of politics. Politics, for sure, cannot be a means of livelihood. We may perhaps be able to attain substantive progress when the peasantry and the working class organise political parties and stronger social movements to push for more social equality and justice both inside and the outside the present structures.
As of now, the major political parties have to be equally committed to shared principles of constitutionalism; and in that feature of constitutional democracy, an effective and legitimate opposition acting as a check on government must be a reality. In its absence popular street protests will precipitate one crisis after another. Political parties have to stop coalescing around powerful individuals and display genuine commitment to structural reform and wealth re-distribution in a society that remains very unequal.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.