Has the political culture changed, at all?
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
The immediate past caretaker government is criticized not unfairly for many of its transparent failures : the inability to conduct the anticorruption campaign neatly and effectively, for excesses committed against individuals-- violating their fundamental rights-- while carrying out the drive against corruption, for not doing enough to leave vital state institutions in deep cleansed conditions, etc. But that government, undoubtedly, lifted expectations of the people to a very high degree. Whether the same have been fulfilled by them when they were in charge is another issue. But the expectations created by the caretakers when they took over that they would work for a new beginning in the country's life, particularly its political life, initially received widespread and enthusiastic public support. Specially, it was realized at all levels of society in Bangladesh that the country's political system needed deep-seated reforms and a complete revival in the positive sense because the political leaders had been supremely responsible for running the country and their very irresponsible manners and inefficiencies were at the heart of holding back the country's desired progress in all respects.
The activities of the caretakers disillusioned the people in the longer run. But it cannot be said that this disillusionment about the caretakers means approval either of the old order practiced by the political parties so far. People remain eager, as always, that the political culture in Bangladesh must change because the politicians are at the helm in steering the country and till they are reformed, the governance of the country specially economic governance, won't change for the better.
Thus, the developments in the political sphere continue to be keenly watched since the transition afresh to an elected and representative government. People have been observing what steps the political parties, particularly their leaders, take in the backdrop of their experiences for two years under the caretaker government when they were shocked and affected by all kinds of actions taken by that government on their own. People have been interested to know whether the parties have gone through any changes in their mind-set, whether there are genuinely any drivers in them for their inner democratisation or reforms and whether the reformists are getting a good hearing from their party comrades at large. It seems not. For both the major political parties held their long overdue council sessions to consider issues of the greatest importance to them. It was thought that the desire for democratisation and reforms of the parties would be ascendant at these events. But such hopes were belied as in the council sessions of both parties only undemocratic instincts prevailed over the reformists. In fact, the reformist quarters or voices were all but wiped out in these sessions.
The ruling Awami League (AL) was the first to hold its council session. But from it the present Prime Minister and leader of the party, Sheikh Hasina, emerged only the stronger with unquestioned power remaining concentrated in her hands. The reformists were only further humbled with their influence coming nearer to zero after this grand assemblage of the Awami Leaguers.
The council session of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) that followed was disappointingly worse. The councilors elected the BNP's present chairperson and gave her complete authority to nominate individuals completely at her discretion to all important party positions. The council elected the chairperson's elder son as the senior vice-chairman of the party. The move was seen as the complete unconcern of the top party leaders about properly reorganising the party even after its humiliating defeat in the last general election.
But how can such developments be welcomed in the interest of democracy and good governance in Bangladesh ? Again and again it was proved that the greatest misfortune of Bangladesh has been its inability to usher in real democracy to be characterised by the political parties cleaning their own stables to allow for upward movement to leadership positions in them by individual possessing true merit, high qualities of leadership and integrity of character and such a process not to be affected by dictatorial ambitions or claims of family pedigree and cult. There are also many other issues to be addressed in the political system such as the mindless abstention from parliament, calling economy detrimental hartals, the lack of a bipartisan approach to vital or core national issues, etc. But it is a tragedy that the politicians in this country are yet to mature to a state to take really dedicated inclusive measure for the solid establishment of these values or norms in the political system.
As it is some political observers have found not much of qualitative changes in all governments since the fall of the so-called autocratic regime towards the end of the eighties except for that those were elected ones.
Thus, the glass remains possibly only one third of it full and the rest empty. Bangladesh-- today-- presently has only the trappings of democracy. Its real democratic journey remains far complete and this is the biggest challenge before it. For what it means to have a real democratic system, our leaders only have to look at recent examples in other truly functioning democracies. In UK, Tony Blair was a towering figure in the ruling Labour Party and the Prime Minister. But his own party colleagues got rid of him as the supreme leader when they considered him to be failing and letting the party down in the eyes of the electorate in different ways. Can we think of such things happening in the BNP or the Awami League in their present settings ? The answer again should be obvious.
The immediate past caretaker government is criticized not unfairly for many of its transparent failures : the inability to conduct the anticorruption campaign neatly and effectively, for excesses committed against individuals-- violating their fundamental rights-- while carrying out the drive against corruption, for not doing enough to leave vital state institutions in deep cleansed conditions, etc. But that government, undoubtedly, lifted expectations of the people to a very high degree. Whether the same have been fulfilled by them when they were in charge is another issue. But the expectations created by the caretakers when they took over that they would work for a new beginning in the country's life, particularly its political life, initially received widespread and enthusiastic public support. Specially, it was realized at all levels of society in Bangladesh that the country's political system needed deep-seated reforms and a complete revival in the positive sense because the political leaders had been supremely responsible for running the country and their very irresponsible manners and inefficiencies were at the heart of holding back the country's desired progress in all respects.
The activities of the caretakers disillusioned the people in the longer run. But it cannot be said that this disillusionment about the caretakers means approval either of the old order practiced by the political parties so far. People remain eager, as always, that the political culture in Bangladesh must change because the politicians are at the helm in steering the country and till they are reformed, the governance of the country specially economic governance, won't change for the better.
Thus, the developments in the political sphere continue to be keenly watched since the transition afresh to an elected and representative government. People have been observing what steps the political parties, particularly their leaders, take in the backdrop of their experiences for two years under the caretaker government when they were shocked and affected by all kinds of actions taken by that government on their own. People have been interested to know whether the parties have gone through any changes in their mind-set, whether there are genuinely any drivers in them for their inner democratisation or reforms and whether the reformists are getting a good hearing from their party comrades at large. It seems not. For both the major political parties held their long overdue council sessions to consider issues of the greatest importance to them. It was thought that the desire for democratisation and reforms of the parties would be ascendant at these events. But such hopes were belied as in the council sessions of both parties only undemocratic instincts prevailed over the reformists. In fact, the reformist quarters or voices were all but wiped out in these sessions.
The ruling Awami League (AL) was the first to hold its council session. But from it the present Prime Minister and leader of the party, Sheikh Hasina, emerged only the stronger with unquestioned power remaining concentrated in her hands. The reformists were only further humbled with their influence coming nearer to zero after this grand assemblage of the Awami Leaguers.
The council session of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) that followed was disappointingly worse. The councilors elected the BNP's present chairperson and gave her complete authority to nominate individuals completely at her discretion to all important party positions. The council elected the chairperson's elder son as the senior vice-chairman of the party. The move was seen as the complete unconcern of the top party leaders about properly reorganising the party even after its humiliating defeat in the last general election.
But how can such developments be welcomed in the interest of democracy and good governance in Bangladesh ? Again and again it was proved that the greatest misfortune of Bangladesh has been its inability to usher in real democracy to be characterised by the political parties cleaning their own stables to allow for upward movement to leadership positions in them by individual possessing true merit, high qualities of leadership and integrity of character and such a process not to be affected by dictatorial ambitions or claims of family pedigree and cult. There are also many other issues to be addressed in the political system such as the mindless abstention from parliament, calling economy detrimental hartals, the lack of a bipartisan approach to vital or core national issues, etc. But it is a tragedy that the politicians in this country are yet to mature to a state to take really dedicated inclusive measure for the solid establishment of these values or norms in the political system.
As it is some political observers have found not much of qualitative changes in all governments since the fall of the so-called autocratic regime towards the end of the eighties except for that those were elected ones.
Thus, the glass remains possibly only one third of it full and the rest empty. Bangladesh-- today-- presently has only the trappings of democracy. Its real democratic journey remains far complete and this is the biggest challenge before it. For what it means to have a real democratic system, our leaders only have to look at recent examples in other truly functioning democracies. In UK, Tony Blair was a towering figure in the ruling Labour Party and the Prime Minister. But his own party colleagues got rid of him as the supreme leader when they considered him to be failing and letting the party down in the eyes of the electorate in different ways. Can we think of such things happening in the BNP or the Awami League in their present settings ? The answer again should be obvious.