IN a democratic society, political parties (PPs) are formed for the purpose of representing the people's views and fulfilling their hopes and aspirations. Accountability of the PPs is to the people, and on the basis of the said purpose. Ownership of the PPs has to lie with the masses to ensure that.
In most developing countries, the behaviour of the PPs does not coincide with the expectations of the people. Most of the PPs are formed, or are transformed, into parties that play the power game.
Winning the election and capturing state authority by any means become the focal point of all their activities. Once in power, PPs tend to fulfill self and group interests, and also try to stay in power by manipulating the election process as a whole.
Weak state institutions, ineffective administration and law enforcement, pervasive corruption, and distorted political culture and understanding have allowed the PPs to stray from serving the interests of the people, and become profit making institutions run by self-seeking opportunists.
Efficient running of the party towards achieving that sort of distorted goal necessitates dictatorial leadership and secrecy in decision-making and financial transactions. Inter- party democracy becomes the casualty, along with transparency in decision-making and financial management. The top leaders assume the role of owners and the other members turn out to be subordinate employees.
PPs under the above category do not represent the people and their ambitions. Instead, they represent the top echelon and the members of respective PPs. Accountability of political parties, thus, becomes limited to its patrons, members and supporters, and not to the general mass.
In the context of Bangladesh, it may be said that not all political parties have come down to that stage. But there should be no doubt that most of them, including the important and bigger parties, may be considered similar and comparable.
Parties that fail to represent the people may not be considered democratic, even if they are elected.
Democracy was formally restored and parliamentary form of government introduced in 1991 by making necessary amendments to the constitution.
Subsequent governments under different PPs ran the country in an autocratic way without following any system of effective accountability. They concentrated on their own welfare, and on using manipulative means to perpetuate power. This created a reign of mal-governance, pervasive corruption and looting of public funds by ruling party people and their cronies.
The situation reached a climax during the period of the last government. The people were deprived of their dues in terms of material, rights or services from the government, and had to suffer harassment and miseries as a result. The election process was grossly manipulated. The election for the ninth parliament had to be abandoned in view of a nationwide protest.
The activities of the PPs are generally not considered to be "pro-people" all the time, instead they are "pro-party leadership" or at best "pro-party members." PPs do not seem to be accountable to the people, only to their leadership. Interestingly, the leadership in almost all cases does not need to be accountable to anybody.
The ownership of PPs must be given to the people to make them pro-people. All committees and leadership are to be elected through secret balloting, decisions are to be taken in open forums, and accounts of all financial transactions must be made transparent to the public.
The Election Commission (EC) recently enacted the amended Representation of People Ordinance 2008 (RPO, 2008), where it has been made mandatory for all the PPs to be registered with the EC.
As a precondition for obtaining registration, the constitution of the PPs are to be recast, ensuring certain aspects like practice of democracy in the party (all committees including the top most post will need to be periodically elected through secret balloting of the members), decisions are to be taken collectively after discussion in a open forum, financial transactions are to be done in a transparent way as per a prescribed guideline provided in the law, etc. PPs are to ensure compliance of all these activities after registration by providing periodical reports in prescribed way at the designated time to retain the registration.
Framing of the above provisions in the law is a welcome step. But, how much of those would be implemented in the real sense? Would it be pragmatic to expect the EC to effectively monitor those and ensure such a dramatic reversal of existing culture? Or would it be just a law with all the pious intentions, not to be followed in real life like many other reformatory laws?
The implementation of the law, its practice, and subsequent success of the reform agenda can be possible if people at large share the responsibility of monitoring the same. Here comes the role of the Right to Information ordinance, 2008 (RTI ordinance, 2008).
Until reforms are carried out in the existing political culture of the PPs, there is reason for at least some PPs to hesitate in accepting registration under the new RPO act or the enactment of RTI ordinance and its effective implementation.
The spirit of the RPO act and RTI is against the mentioned distorted objectives of many PPs as revealed in the past by their activities. The amended RPO and the proposed RTI ,when enacted, will create an effective barrier against corruption and other underhand activities.
Under the circumstances, PPs may display their commitment for effective reforms, and an improvement of political culture to achieve good and accountable governance, by registering the parties, maintaining all conditions as per the amended RPO act and putting the issue of RTI in their election manifesto. They may also consider declaring that they would do everything possible for proper and effective implementation of both the acts.

G.M. Quader is a former member of parliament.