Pandemonium
Democracy is indeed a process of accommodation involving a combination of division and cohesion and of conflict and consent. This means it needs tolerance. To make things interesting a combination of division and cohesion and conflict and consent is required. However, there is a difference between mature democracies like United States, Britain or Sweden and countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, which are struggling to achieve democracy.
Democracy is a system of rule by temporary majorities. Rulers and policies may freely change, but the boundaries must endure. Bangladesh attained its independence through an armed struggle, sacrificing the lives of about three million people to establish democracy. It is unfortunate that it is still limping due to emergence of a strong anti-democratic force, which was almost successful in crushing the democratic spirit of the people in general.
Fortunately, the emergence of a strong democratic force through united struggle of our two major political parties successfully threw out the dictatorial regime to re-establish democracy in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, these parties, instead of building a strong base for democracy, faced the re-emergence of semi-dictatorial rule (so called caretaker government of 2007-08). Once again these parties united to the throw out the said government.
At last, democracy was brought back through a free, fair and credible election in 2008.
Democracy cannot thrive or put down roots where there is no mutual respect among the parties. Opinions may differ, but that does not mean that the majority should dictate to the minority. We find no logic in the plea that, because the 4-party alliance committed mistakes, the present government has the right to retaliate or behave in the same fashion. In fact, no retaliation but reconciliation, and no coercion but cooperation and competition are needed.
By stalling the efforts of the government the opposition does not gain, though it may be successful in denying the party/parties in position from enjoying the glory of success. But ultimately it loses
It is generally said that both the major parties are basically against dictatorial regime. If this is true, then why should there be mud-slinging, use of abusive language against each other, and destruction of the dignity of the Parliament through mean behaviour. To any sensible person it inconceivable that there can be pandemonium caused by attempts to damage the image of the father of the nation.
Why should this happen when the members of Parliament are supposed to make sacrifices for setting democracy on a firm footing? Have the politicians forgotten the black days of the caretaker regime of 2007-08? Have the people of Bangladesh brought back democracy repeatedly only for the members of Parliament to behave in the most irresponsible and undignified way in the Parliament?
We are glad that the parliamentarians have agreed to be more responsible and dignified in their behaviour in future and that the speaker has taken a tough stand. It may be pointed out that the Rules of Procedure provide sweeping powers to the speaker -- even to take punitive action against errant lawmakers.
What is important at this stage is intervention of the heads of the parties, particularly the heads of the two major parties, for improving the behaviour of the members of the concerned party. They must impress upon their party members the need for showing tolerance and respect toward members of other parties.
Ordinarily, Bengalis are tolerant. However, to establish democracy on a firmer footing, our politicians need be more tolerant. We hope that our major political parties will be more attentive towards the need for tolerance and accommodation to take the country forward with grace and dignity.
Comments