How to make democracy work in Bangladesh

Co-existence is the essence of democracy.Photo: STAR

THE foggy December weather in Dhaka mirrors the national politics of Bangladesh. Political pundits and talk show guests express their disappointment with the two major political coalitions openly. Scepticisms is infectious. With national elections only a few days away, some ask: Does democracy have a future in Bangladesh? The answer is a qualified yes. Bangladesh will continue to be a democracy with a Bangladeshi face, i.e., it will have some features unique to the culture of this region.
It is highly unlikely that family-based politics will disappear in the near future in Bangladesh, or in South Asia, or perhaps Asia. However, it is also likely that the electorate will increasingly make a distinction between an ill-educated heir of a leader and an educated scion. It is also unlikely that pork barrel politics will disappear soon. There are many sources of corruption, one of which is the acceptance of corruption by the electorate as seen in the continued popularity of some known corrupt politicians. At the same time, honest, educated candidates are sometimes spurned.
As a sign of resentment against imperfect democracy, many are thinking about saying no to the candidates on the ballot. Yet, a large number of Bangladeshis are both pragmatic and forgiving. They are pragmatic enough to accept the second best and forgiving enough to give the corrupt politician a second -- and sometimes, a third -- chance.
Of the various requirements of democracy, an important one is trust. The government and the ruling party must trust the opposition party to rule the country when they assume the mantle of political power. Such trust makes smooth, peaceful transfer of power possible. Bangladesh has seen three transfers of power through national elections. Those were dismal occasions and not very peaceful either. Justice Habibur Rahman, former chief adviser of caretaker government, was right when he said that the practice of caretaker government was, in effect, an admission of failure. Yet, under the present circumstances, it is a reasonable innovation.
The 9th parliamentary election still looks pretty open. BNP and its four-party alliance may win the December 29 election. Should we trust BNP to be able to run the country? Yes. They have done it before and, given the chance, they will be able to do it again. But this time, it will be a little messier than before. Emboldened by the popular mandate and with scanty graciousness, they are likely to go after their opponents -- by now quite numerous -- which will be quite ugly.
Can Awami League-led Mohajot (grand alliance) run the country if elected? Yes. Few would doubt their ability. Many believe that they are less likely to go after their opponents.
The absence of trust between the leading parties is a major problem; the other problem is the absence of responsibility. While there is a culture of sycophancy, which is a feature of authoritarianism, there is no culture of appreciation. In the election campaign BNP leader Khaleda Zia is accusing the opposition of working on behalf of some unnamed foreign country. She has also accused the caretaker government of making Bangladesh a failed state at the behest of some unnamed foreign power.
Such wild accusations are unbecoming of a potential prime minister. To accuse the opposition of being traitors is simply irresponsible and cannot be downplayed as election propaganda. Although many people in Bangladesh are smart enough to see through this baseless propaganda, there are others whose loyalty to their leader would make them believe anything. However, what is ironical is that these were the tactics of the Pakistani rulers against the Bengali nationalists during the days of united Pakistan, who portrayed Awami League as acting on behalf of India to "dismember" Pakistan.
Muslim League leaders and their successor, General Yahya Khan, made protecting "national sovereignty" their mission. Ominously, the same sound bites now come from the leaders of BNP. I mention this with due respect to the BNP leadership. For the absence of respect will make democracy dysfunctional. But it is difficult to respect irresponsible people.
It is good that many commentators have alluded to Senator McCain's concession speech, which was gracious. However, I would like to remind the leaders of Bangladesh to take a leaf from Al Gore's concession speech, of December 13, 2000, after the controversial US presidential election and the fiasco in Florida.
In that memorable speech, Al Gore said: "…the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome." Mr. Gore also referred to another speech from the mid nineteenth century. "Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, 'partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.' Well, in that same spirit, I say to president-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancour must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country."
To make democracy work, this is the sort of concession speech our leaders should rehearse.

Habibul Haque Khondker is professor of sociology at Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.