The return of democrats and some questions
Cynics say that in Bangladesh, the sensible position is pessimism. In such a background it is not surprising to see our voluble elite quite often wishing or predicting a worst case scenario. Many amongst us have a mindset that expects deterioration in everything. Still others would say that at best status quo ante will prevail.
The question is, why and how the aforementioned mindset has developed? There is a considered view that the change on 11th January 2007 has been occasioned by ruling group's visionless, inept and inefficient actions and attitudes. One may also wonder if our ruling class is largely represented by self-seeking and greedy individuals whose primary aim is to remain in power by any means and enjoy its perks and privileges. Have they contributed to a sense of despondency, fatality and helplessness?
Some would say that the personal and coterie interests of powerful groups have taken precedence over national interests and in the process the people don't count. However, people who have not gained from governmental ventures perhaps think and behave differently. Social scientists witness distinct change in the thinking and behaviour of the general masses. Such change appears positive. In other words, at societal level there is a yearning for change, a realization that Bangladesh is our country and we have to do something to better our lot.
The premonition is, shall we continue to remain positioned on an ominous fault line, that is, a disconnect between the State and society? Such apprehension assumes significance when one sees the widening gulf between the ruling class and the people and the waning of people's confidence in the establishment.
We would do well in remembering that the crisis of governance at several levels during the supposedly democratic rule was caused not by lack of resources but due to the absence of institutions of governance and the lack of accountability. So when the democrats return to power they will have to decide if in order to promote and protect their interests, they should continue to use coercion, bribery and nepotism as policy and go on nourishing a culture of opportunism, deceit, duplicity and plunder. They need to ponder seriously as to the mechanisms of strengthening the political institutions.
Our democrats should engage in self-introspection to find out how regulatory state outfits have shown progressive decay while only succeeding in suppressing political dissent. They need to understand why in Bangladesh we neither had a democratic setup in the conventional sense nor a state which has the capacity to effectively improve the living standards of the people and arrange security. They have to decide about ensuring political stability and creating space to differing groups.
Our elected representatives of the not-too-distant future will have to compensate for the lack of legitimacy of our weaker democratic system and remove the disconnect between the civil society and the ruling establishment. They must not continue with the misconception that brute force, fear, coercion and corruption are the only sustaining factor of the governing system. Our new dispensation must not seek the support of discredited politicians and individuals having criminal record and not indulge in relaxation of rules for furthering a culture of loot and plunder.
Our potential members of parliament will have to appreciate that they will be dressed in brief authority and that they are not supreme. Therefore, they have to ensure the supremacy of the constitution and thus the eternal human freedoms. In doing so, they will respect the people who have given the constitution unto themselves.
It is perhaps time to have some qualifications laid down for members of parliament. It should strike anomalous that we should insist upon high qualifications for those who administer or help in administering the law, but none for those who make it except that they are elected. Up to now we only see some disqualifications. It would be proper to advocate some positive qualifications for aspirants to parliamentary assignments.
Our political predicament is the result of the inability of our political class to keep pace with the changing times. The main thrust of this class has been towards maintaining the status quo and consequently all our institutions have weakened. Therefore, it is not surprising that three decades after independence we do not see major changes in the mode of governance, all claims and political rhetoric notwithstanding.
The much-maligned British imperial system did provide a framework for reasonably good governance. What we do not admit is that all these years we have not democratized our political institutions, devolve authority at local level and discard the harsh laws that were enacted to control the people. In fact, our belief in democracy or the rule of law has been less than sincere. On one hand, the empowerment of the people in order to enable them to take charge of their destiny has been postponed for a very long time. On the other, the neutrality, independence and non-partisanship of public services have been compromised giving rise to a new culture of political patronage and influence pedaling. With the politicization of the bureaucracy, all hopes for improvement have been badly dashed. Our new leaders have to understand this development.
The changing needs of our society have not been taken into account by our political establishment and consequently we can see a paradoxical situation in that while at the grassroots changes have taken place, the superstructure of the state and its apparatus does not display the supporting dynamism. The intervention has to be of a political nature. Otherwise all the good efforts of philanthropists and NGOs will not succeed to prop up the system. Our new legislators have to remember that our basic problem is that of governance.
The fear is that our weak institutions will experience great difficulty in regaining people's confidence. The need is to have a just and transparent system that is accountable to the people. Therefore, our legislators will have to largely ensure that protection of our non-delivering system from all challenges does not become the prime activity of the State. They have to guarantee that power and hunger for more resources does not become an end in itself.
We have to remember that the choice is between devoting energy and resources for solving people's problems and maintenance of order in society or the use of government machinery to keep rival claimants to power in check. Without doubt, such a scenario amounts to a zero-sum game. So if our politicians and legislators cannot rise above their narrow individual or group interests on account of dynamics of power then the writ of democracy will be weak and irrelevant. The people of Bangladesh do not want that.
Comments