Liberties and limits of democracy

IT'S one thing to throw out a bad government it's another to install something better. The caretaker government's attempt to clean up a corrupt political system and adopt economic reforms to help rebuild a ramshackle economy may have failed to a certain extent, but when politicians offer only crowd-pleasing rhetoric instead of sound and proven ideas, the result is not a promise of hope. Unsurprisingly, the caretaker government aroused public expectation of change, but couldn't achieve much. It is always difficult to defeat ghosts of the past. Some sociologists jokingly commented that corruption has entered the DNA of our national culture and has naturally reproduced itself there. Political corruption is widespread throughout the country. Unscrupulous politicians see their main job as to harvesting money.
People try to pin blame on Anti-Corruption Commission for the wholesale release of jailbirds, accused of corruption and scandals. There must be some misunderstanding about the role and jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Commission. The officials of this commission can only expose corruption and bring those responsible to justice. It is up to the court to decide whether someone is guilty. Lord Radcliffe, a Law Lord from 1949 to 1964, in the United Kingdom, once said that the judges undertake their task with an eye to securing the public interest. The judicial conception of the public interest includes, firstly, the interests of the state, its moral welfare, secondly, preservation of law and order and thirdly, the protection of property rights and finally judges' views on social and political issues of the day.
Another Law Lord, Lord Hailsham used to exercise discretion and gave direction to society. A highly respected Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning once went on so far as to say that keeping some innocent people to prison was preferable to undermining the confidence in the legal system. This country badly needs a Judicial Ombudsman to handle public grievances.
Perhaps once again we are going to get usual politicians who'll mouth the usual platitudes about the glories of democracy and cynically practice antithesis of such values and principles. At this point in time, this country badly needs wise and visionary leader, who can uplift the lot of the poor and the socially deprived. That again needs more schools, more teachers, more colleges, and more vocational training institutes to create employability and more growth to generate greater employment.
Does democracy always produce fresh blood? I am afraid, the answer is perhaps no. Bangladeshis, are steaming mad at some of the corrupt politicians but can't seem to avoid re-electing them in the elections. In Russia, when Mr. Medvedev became president, a flurry of hopes surfaced, because he happened to be young, modern and loved American rock music and thought to be more moderate in his views. When ex-president and king-maker Mr. Vladimir Putin appointed himself as his prime minister, in effect the virtual ruler of the country, all hopes were dashed immediately.
Many people died in the aftermath of the election in Pakistan. Pakistan fell victim to political infighting and the furies of religious division now sweep the country. If there is a winner so far from recent parliamentary election in Pakistan, it's seemingly the clerics who helped make Waziristan, the tribal region of the country, the most resilient havens of Al-qaeda.
There is, of course, a loser, too: Pakistani democracy. Election failed to produce a modern and dynamic leader to pull the country out of the political quagmire and break free from the ugly cycle of violence and political crisis.
The onset of democracy will not be any smoother there. One does not have to be antidemocratic to acknowledge that the transition to democracy can be pretty ragged in countries like Pakistan.
Politicians like Asif Ali Zardari will be the unwanted hero and Nawaz Sharif the villain. Mr Sharif met his political end during the second of his two terms as prime minister, when he tried to sack Mr Musharraf, who was then the powerful army chief of staff. Musharraf quickly overthrew Sharif and sent him into exile. But while Mr Sharif was in power he tried to force Parliament to make Sharia the law of the land to appease Islamic fundamentalists.
Appalled by the mess next door, many Arabs may prefer dictatorship to the 'anarchy' of supposedly democratic Iraq.
Does democracy build national cohesion? Answer is not a straight 'yes.' India's democratic political system seems utterly incapable of addressing the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. After more than 50 odd years of independence, still India keeps an estimated 600,000 troops in the state to fight insurgency. Not to speak of the problem of the Palestinians in Israel and Tamil speaking people in Sri Lanka.
Democracy often puts limits on central authority, can sometimes also diminish it. Many Third World countries have their own problems of democratic government. However, the United States and the Western powers firmly believe that democracy is a kind of political panacea, a patent medicine for whatever ailed your country or society. Bothered by an entrenched corrupt government? Take a free and fair election. Got a command economy? Just free up the system. Our development partners should realize that the voice of the people is often found alarmingly hostile to such utopian ideas.
The American diplomat, Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, in his recent trip to Dhaka stated that free and fair elections were far more important to Bangladesh's development than all other issues. I hope he will appreciate that process of democracy may be very slow and even messy in our country and may also cause set back in political and economic reform. Politicians of many Third World countries literally change the very concept of democracy beyond all recognition. They move to snuff out even the faintest flickers of liberal democracy.
These political actors do not hesitate to crush opponents, emasculate the courts and Parliament, eliminate independent broadcast media and scrap the independence of the national institutions, guaranteed by the constitution. They know it full well that the West has only limited influence over today's increasingly hostile Third World countries. We do not have to go beyond Zimbabwe to comprehend the corrupt realities of such politics. Perhaps these maverick leaders have developed resistance against nice democracy pills, but ordinary people suffer badly by its side effects.
A lot of East European countries held open elections. To the surprise of many, that were won by so-called ex-communists and democrats were so offended that they took to the streets to denounce newly elected governments.
It is true that democracy has many great virtues; no system has ever been proved superior. It needs to be grown and nurtured; we should not cram it down people's throat. It is probably a healthy thing that we learn these lessons on the limitations of democracy, for the cherished growth of the system.

Anam A Choudhury is a former investment banker.