Weird proposition

VERY few newspapers carried the detailed report of a seminar on "Democratic Transformation in Bangladesh: Opportunities and Challenges" held recently in Dhaka. And those that did didn't dwell in detail on the very quintessence of the message that the organisers of the seminar wanted to convey.
In fact, but for one Bangla daily perhaps, those who did not have the good fortune to be present at the seminar might not have come to know about the very unique proposition made in the keynote paper -- which tried to sell the idea of a very new form of governance, one that would be shared by the military and the political parties.
These views are deserving of response since they are in conflict with the normative role of the armed forces in Bangladesh as a part of the executive organ of the state. However, not having the benefit of the original paper, my comments stem from whatever reports that have appeared in the media.
It is a unique postulation no doubt, and the very peculiarity of the substance of the suggestion and the timing, make it stand out like a very sore thumb. We have instances of great minds, or at least thinking minds, creating furore by their comments on matters of the state -- not all with the honest intention of making the quality of life of the people better, but also for the purpose of strengthening the coercive character of the ruler. Those opinions did not normally go with the grain of popular thoughts or perception of common issues.
However, the theory of power sharing (or the armed forces being in supportive role) as articulated in the said keynote paper, coming as it does when the country is waiting very eagerly for an election that would see the restoration of the normal democratic process in the country, cannot but convey the impression that there is a school of thought -- self-motivated or otherwise, that have other ideas of how democracy and politics should function in the country.
These views are seen with concern all the more because at a time when the armed forces are distancing themselves from the idea of the running of the state, even in countries with constitutionally mandated role in politics, some are trying to propagate ideas in our country that would embroil the military in matters that they have neither any training, nor are expected, to handle.
That the suggestion was shot down by the politicians present at the seminar, as it should have been, means that they were not about to fall for the new concept, which if given the benefit of an iota of our consideration or time, may come to dictate the future political order in Bangladesh.
Let us look at the proposal. Since the main theme of the seminar was on the ways and means of overcoming the current crisis of democracy in Bangladesh the suggestion contained in the keynote paper envisaged a role of the military in running the affairs of the state for ensuring national security and stability of the country. The paper envisioned an "in support" role of the military for the sake of upholding democracy. And that could be done, according to the author, through setting up of a National Security Council.
Needless to mention, the suggestion is not only counterproductive, it is also retrogressive to say the least. What it has helped do is reinforce misperceptions on two issues, which was entirely unnecessary.
First, it has strengthened the arguments of those, and they are not few in number, that the military want a role for it in the running of the state and indeed in the politics of the country, and would like to have that legitimised through some "instrument."
Secondly, by suggesting that the proposed role could be effected through the National Security Council the keynote speaker has managed to completely distort the idea of the NSC. In fact, the apprehensions of those that see the NSC as a "ploy" to institutionalise the armed force role and give it a say directly in the running of state affairs would feel happy to see their position vindicated. The NSC, a perfectly good arrangement for addressing the security issues that face the country or might do in the future, will now come to be seen as "the instrument" for legitimising the armed forces' political role.
The role of the military in Bangladesh is clearly defined. One does not really comprehend the idea of a "supportive role" when its mandated role is to ensure national defence. The military, an institution by itself, is to operate under the orders of the political authority, their advice sought on matters of national defence, which falls within the ambit of national security. And national security has come to be more widely inclusive in character. How does one accord a special role to one of the constituent elements of the executive branch for the sake of upholding democracy?
Modern concept of statecraft does not countenance the role of the armed forces in a country's governance. According it such a role would certainly divert it from its main responsibility, which is to prepare itself for the physical defence of the country, not to speak of the deleterious consequences of such an arrangement on politics.
One is not sure either that there are many takers of the idea within the military itself. Certainly my impression is that the armed forces would just as soon want the handover of power to the politicians, and given the many times that senior military leaders have expressed the opinion that they do not nurture the idea of the armed forces involvement in politics, now or in the future, it would seem that the views of the keynote speaker is not representative of the thoughts of the vast segment of those that he would like to confer a new role upon.
It must be stressed also that the NSC is not an apparatus for dictating the affairs of the state. And the suggestion in the keynote paper, that gives one the impression that it would be such a mechanism were we to have one, does not conform to the way NSC functions in other democratic countries.
Needless to say, politicians have not come up to our expectations. And, no doubt, we must have a reformed polity if democracy has to deliver and we need to have election to strengthen democracy, and that we must have elections to get back on track. One wonders whether the envisaged role of the armed forces fits into this scheme of things
It must be clarified that democracy per se is not in any crisis. On the contrary it may actually be under threat if the protagonists of the proposal have their way, and those that may be taken up with the idea of the new role of the armed forces should be aware of the fallacy of, what many see as, an ill-considered idea.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.