Politicians' pledges and voters' aspirations
It has very often been said that the 20th century was the century of the common man. As one looks around, one wonders whether the common man in the past century was more a victim than a beneficiary. Nonetheless, the development of various human rights instruments including the right to vote was quite visible in the past century.
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted following the end of the Second World War, the right of every person to participate in his or her government, and to share in the selection of that government through free choice, was proclaimed.
The specific relationship of this concept to the functions of government today arises, because, as we know, there are many nations which, even in this 21st century, do not have free elections. However, there are also nations which are attempting to have free elections following a period of dictatorial military rule, or following a period when there were legal as well as ruling authority imposed restrictions which excluded the participation of the people in determining their country's policies for governance and participation.
More or less, every country is now trying to organise political affairs or managing the affairs of the state through some political system. These countries are apparently, or practically, being run by a set of people who are using their authority as the representatives of the people. The main issue, therefore, is their authority to govern and how this authority has been earned.
As for the political process through which the right to govern has been earned or managed, everybody is claiming it to be credible and acceptable and thus the mandate of the people. But in reality the things are not always the same, and the ground rules are often not very clearly defined regarding the freeness, fairness and credibility of the electoral process.
As for Bangladesh, the year 2013 can be rightly called the election year or for that matter the preparation year for the tenth parliamentary election, although the threat of a political crisis over the next election is looming large on the horizon.
Anyway, hopefully our politicians at least in the consideration of peace and harmony and continuation of democratic practices will minimise their differences and be able to affect an acceptable constitutional modality of holding the next parliament election to be acceptable to all major political parties with a view to transferring political power peacefully.
The Members of Parliament (MPs), according to our constitution, make laws, and amend, repeal or modify the existing ones to make them time befitting. They have to also oversee the executive's functions as per their solemn oath of discharging their duties faithfully and not to allow personal interests to influence the discharge of duties demonstrating the significance of the duties to be discharged by them.
All MPs must join the sessions of parliament and also meetings of its different committees to discharge the constitutional duties as well as the obligations to the voters. Moreover, they are bound by oath to do it and there can be no excuses in refraining from joining parliament sessions whenever it is called.
Otherwise, spending so much money for arranging and conducting the election will inevitably fail to deliver the expected results especially in making significant improvement in the governance of the country by establishing the rule of law ensuring equality for all and enforcing proper and effective practice of human rights for all the citizens of the country without making any discrimination of race, culture, gender or social position and party affiliation.
This parliament boycott culture has continued since 1991 when the parliamentary system of governance was restored in the country. It has almost become a normal practice that the members of parliament in the opposition to boycott the parliament sessions forgetting their oath and obligation to the voters.
The opposition have been boycotting the parliament to realise their demands, most of which are related to their personal and partisan interests, very rarely raising a national issue or popular demand. We all know that the main opposition of the present parliament has been boycotting the current parliament since its second session with the demands like increasing their seats in the front row, withdrawal of corruption cases filed against opposition leader Khaleda Zia and her two sons etc. which are, in fact, neither national issues nor connected with any important policy matter.
We have bitter experiences of political lawlessness and maladministration of dictatorial military rule in the past. In the same way, a government with a set of unelected, chosen and selected people can, in no way, be a substitute of an elected government. But the present confrontational behaviour pattern of our political parties and administrative anomalies of our democratic governments would also tell us clearly that our political system needs major shift in terms of leadership -- lack of accountability, defective mode of running the administration, undemocratic way of selection of leaders at different tiers, and unclean arrangements for having financing for political parties and its associate bodies.
It has been proved by the activities of the political parties and their leaders in the past that so many leaders ruled the country and set so many bad examples of corrupt practices and lack of leadership qualities, whims and favouritism in decision-making, creating anarchy in the administrative matters and overall failures in implementing their pledges to the nation and finally walked out without being accountable to anyone.
This is simply because in our politics the politicians seem to be free to exercise their power without fear of giving reasons of their failure, mainly because of lack of sufficient accountability and regular and systematic mechanism for monitoring their performances as well as for providing reward for good work and punishment for bad work or failure to deliver the goods in a desired manner.
In anyway, the people of Bangladesh are going to exercise their choice either late this year or early next year. Their choice will be for candidates as well as for their programmes. The political parties, as in the past, will announce their pledges to draw the attention of the voters, while the voters will have clear aspirations and expectations from the leaders they will choose for governing them for the next five years.
Our people expect that their leaders will ensure effective restoration of good governance in every field of our social, political and economic life. They expect that the parliament will be the real seat of power where the parliamentarians will get the opportunity to discuss all the major issues of the country, and that laws will be enacted for the welfare of the common people. Voters' aspirations will not be too much if they ask for an uninterrupted supply of power throughout the country so that the production line of the manufacturing companies is not hindered, and the farmers can have power at the time of their irrigation purposes.
The voters must have the right to buy essential items at reasonable prices, and they can make such a demand to their politicians and the citizens have the right to have a decent and peaceful life. The voters can demand effective communication to orient the service providers to the role and rights of the public and also to sensitise the public especially the vulnerable, about their public rights.
Above all, the major problem for Bangladesh has been the all pervasive corruption that has not only created uncertainties in the policy environment but has also raised the cost of doing business. Therefore, the leaders and the politicians have a responsibility as well as obligation to the voters who aspire for good governance and proper behaviour from them while exercising their authority in running the affairs of the state. But in any case, democracy does not mean only election. Rule of law, fundamental rights, economic development -- these are all inter-related issues -- one cannot go without the other and democratic practices are the only way for moving forward.
The political parties and candidates are the real actors of any democratic election, and credibility of any election largely depends on their behaviour pattern and mode of operations before, during and finally after the election.
Finally, at the same time the losing party or parties serve as alternate government in opposition, scrutinising the government, criticising its policies and administration, articulating its blunders, offering alternative programmes and techniques and standing ready to assume the responsibilities of the office whenever the voters favour them. Thus, in democratic system the leaders of the government as well as those of the opposition have almost the same responsibilities and obligation to the voters.
The writer is Chairman, Society for Projection and Advocacy for Awareness Programme.