Impeaching the vested interests
People want to know what is happening in Bangladesh. What is the nature of our current situation? Is it just an aberration - a passing phase, a cyclical disorder or does it have far deeper implications? Do we have a crisis of the state or simply the pangs of transition from non-elected dispensation to democracy? Some would like to believe that the coming general election will solve all problems relating to political instability, militancy and the deprivation of a large chunk of our population living below the poverty line.
The skeptics would say that despite changes elsewhere including our neighbourhood what has not changed in our country is the basic composition and mindset of the ruling classes, archaic mode of governance and their stranglehold on the levers of power; and in large measure the base of their authority is the coercive power of the State. Some see a conflict between status-quo and change, with ruling classes wanting to perpetuate their rule and others desirous of change in order to improve.
There is no doubt that effectively organized political party that does the correct mass mobilization becomes the real nemesis of vested interests. Unfortunately, that has not happened in our case. Our ruling class (political inclusive) turned out to be a very selfish formidable group due to establishment support in terms of money, jobs, promotions and guarantee of protection from accountability. We have amongst us privileged people who have made enormous amounts of money in doubtful ways without any questions asked.
A pertinent question is, if we have an 'over-developed' state and weak civil society groups; also if there has developed a coterie of people whose interests lay in authoritarian rule. Is our political class averse to mass mobilization because they are scared of real people's power? It may, therefore, be the time to think of impeaching our system. The system is like the proverbial dog in the village well. It will not be cleansed if we take out a few pots of water. We may have to throw out the dog itself.
On a point of illustration, one may take a look at our electoral system and find that major political parties are at best personalized institutions. Some of them have been converted into family dynasties where the mantle is passed or intended to be passed from one generation to another. Even when internal elections are held, they are not significant as the top leadership remains the same. The other parties also suffer from similar incapacitation with no party member daring to challenge the word of the leader, no internal debates, and no merit-based upward movement from the junior rungs of the ladder to the top echelons. The political parties do not have active think-tanks that would venture to find solutions to problems like sustainable growth, social development, housing, health and education.
Our national level elected representatives, that is, the members of parliament, once elected are conspicuous by their absence from their constituencies. Instead of maintaining an active presence in their area, they are often found in Dhaka. In many constituencies there are virtual family fiefdoms that resist any change that may threaten the power base of the coterie interests. These people and groups are the supporters of the status quo because that ensures their permanent hold on power with attendant pelf and privilege.
On another front of the judiciary and administration of criminal justice, one would come across lofty and noble utterances about rule of law and independence of judiciary. These are, without any trace of doubt, very commendable. However, we do not see meaningful efforts for the reform of the entire judicial system that can address the ailments standing in the way of the process of delivery of justice. There are important issues like the appointment process of judges, the so-called fixing of cases, satisfying the staff at many steps, the abnormal delays in trial and the affordability of seeking justice by the poor under the present system, that demand urgent attention.
The present situation of the lower courts with reference to the incapability of the judges to dispose of cases, the conditions in which they are forced to work, paucity of staff and furniture, portrays a very disquieting scenario. Reportedly, millions of dollar has been spent on justice sector reform, but the question is, what is the achievement? On law enforcement dimension, there is the much discussed UNDP sponsored police reform but even after three years of work, the new Police Ordinance, a necessity by all means, cannot see the light of the day.
A pragmatic appreciation of our socio-economic scene would be that while things at government level are deteriorating or stagnating, at societal level there is a yearning for change. There is a realization that Bangladesh is our country and we have to do positive work to improve. Unfortunately, there is still a disconnect between the state and the society. It would appear that the state with all its power, mandate and resources is not aware of the ground reality: how people react and perceive things, what are people's needs and priorities. People on the other hand are in the process of losing faith and confidence in government's ability and sincerity to deliver.
In Bangladesh both the supposedly democratic government and less than democratic dispensation, while derailing the political process and suppressing all dissent have not been able to solve the problems of common people. The unsatisfactory state of civic services and law and order are a pointer. Elsewhere in the world authoritarian and repressive regimes have succeeded in raising living standards and maintain law and order with a firm a grip. The cases of Malaysia and Singapore come to mind where one party rule for over 30 years allowed limited political activity and muzzled all opposition, but produced an economic miracle in the lifetime of a generation.
In India political stability has been brought about and the system has provided accommodation to differing groups. Our double jeopardy lies in the reality that our democratic setup could neither provide desired political stability nor could improve living standards and provide security. The establishment still controls all levers of power and has huge resources at its disposal.
It appears that our oligarchic system proves to be effective only for a limited period and can achieve limited objectives because it suffers from two inherent weaknesses of lack of legitimacy and the unfortunate disconnection between the ruling class and the civil society.
The sad reality is that our establishment sustained itself mostly through brute force, fear, coercion and corruption. Despite having democratic identity our system has sought support of discredited politicians and in some cases people having criminal record. To go about political business, that is conducting affairs of state with such people rules have been bent and relaxed that in effect led to a culture of loot and plunder.
The State's writ has to be effective in a redefined role where protecting status quo from all challenges shall not be its prime activity. The government machinery should not be used to keep the rival claimants to power in check. Our ruling class has to rise above narrow self or institutional interests. Pressure must be exerted on the rulers to make them accountable on a continuing basis.
Comments