Decision-making in 'leader-centric' politics

---

Gopal Sengupta Those who claim to have secured the constitutional mandate to speak for the masses do not have a voice, and those who have the voice do not have the mandate in Bangladesh. The governing process gets reduced to attending only to the anxieties, fears, demands, and aspirations of the upper segment of society, while the denials and deprivations of the majority go unvoiced and unreported. The major political parties have lost their voice on two counts. First, political success or failure has come to be defined in terms of winning or losing an election or by-election. And, as things stand, there will always be some local government or parliamentary elections or by-elections in a year, leading to an excessive preoccupation with the electoral battle and resulting in postponement of hard decisions, both within the government and the party. Given the additional burden of coalition arrangements, in which every ally and every supporting party has a functional veto, there is a built-in accent on muting the voice, on finding the middle ground, and on diluting policy objectives. The advantage in this situation lies with those who have the resources to defend their vested interests because political parties and leaders are forever afraid of offending someone or the other. The second reason why the political parties are losing their voice is that most of them have become leader-centric. This excessive emphasis on a leader's decisions means that a political parties' rank and file is systematically discouraged from getting vocal about issues and ideology. 'Leave it to the leader' becomes the common advice. The leadership-centric structures encourage a personality cult leaving the party functionaries and cadres with little choice in the matter of a collective agenda. This would have been an organisational asset, but the leader-knows-best impulse, in turn, somehow tends to make the leader a timid commander. Because, the very idea of challenging or questioning the leader is discouraged; the leader, in turn, feels the need to appease everyone, all in the name of carrying everyone along. The ruling party or the opposition leadership, for instance, is invariably giving in to the most partisan among its internal voices, without any regard for consistency or common sense. Imagine the opposition disrupting parliament in defence of the indiscretions of some retired or defeated officials or leaders. Unless the political leaders find the willingness and the imagination to reclaim their traditional role as moulders of collective ideals and aspirations, the polity will gradually be taken over by anti-democratic voices and forces. Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls for attention to an unhealthy state of things. A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. He or she would have to have the ability afterwards to explain why it did not happen. If politicians do not run away from danger but meet it promptly and bravely, they will be able to meet any challenge facing Bangladesh. Gopal Sengupta writes from Montreal, Canada [email protected]