Institutional reforms for democracy
M Abdul Kabir | Saturday, 2 August 2008
"DEMOCRACY", as a definition goes, "is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens." In a democratic state, people have a mechanism by which they voice their representation, exert parliamentary control and have the power to hold accountable those who are conferred the responsibility of systematic governance. If systematic governance fails, this necessarily implies that, though the society has the form of a democracy, its citizens do not have the parliamentary control and accountability.
Today's state of emergency is a manifestation of the fact that the systematic governance did not work well in our country. And we all know how it failed in practice. It is the competing interests of the public and the politics that rendered it ineffective. The process of representation was inequitable, favouring those who could determine their position by the power of money and connection with those holding the leverage of political parties; parliamentary control was nothing but the command of the party (ies) in power, leaving the oppositions to walk out from the parliament now and then and take to the streets to make their points; and the idea of being accountable to the public used to be looked upon as an offence. Consequently, democracy suffered a legitimacy crisis and failed.
Today, the state of emergency has been considered by many as a means to stabilise politics, to restore democracy. All concerned would, at this stage, cherish the hope that a peaceful transition would become possible, and the present state of affairs should provide the conditions for the change. Yet, looking into the future after the expected changeover, this writer does not see reason for much optimism about the future prospects of democracy.
Well, it may be argued that nobody can foretell the future. But this is not foretelling. It is rather a projection about the future. After 37 years of independence, the democracy in Bangladesh has gone through many twists and turns. The road that had once seemed to us free and clear was strewn with obstacles; it would appear that the old ghosts of interventionism, from within and without, were never done away with, entirely. To make matters worse, the political parties, especially the major ones, used to keep rival-scolding as top agenda, instead of trying to excel one another with democratic practices and in thoughtful political maneuverings. As a result, the whole spectrum of politics was monotonous, droning on a "self-defined nationalism"; it was incompetent, impeding any positive visions for change; and it was impotent, failing the opportunities and aspirations of the people to march forward. As a last point, the inability of the political parties to do away with opposing positions helped obstacles to democracy gather force and to push the country to the verge of 'collapse' in 2007.
Why was such failure and uncertainly? The answer is lack of democratic management and the colossal weakness of all democratic institutions. None should forget that during democracy, especially after the era of dictatorship in the 1980s, some institutional reforms with specific goals and objectives to ensure a fair process of representation, greater parliamentary control and accountability to the public were required. But the political parties did give little consideration to the issue. The previous elected governments insisted on making institutional changes in the form of electoral reforms, creation of an independent Anti-Corruption Commission, separation of the judiciary, reform in the Election Commission and so on. But the public demands were not met and nothing was changed during their terms.
Because these crucial structural reforms were not implemented, there was a sign of weakness everywhere. Politics remained laden with incompetence and the public administration was plagued with irregularities; there was little regard for the rule of law. Consequently, favoritism raced with sycophancy to dominate politics; corruption came into the mainstream, and it was almost impossible to distinguish injustice from justice. It is, therefore, no accident that the country has not achieved economic freedom. We were so ensnared that we limited ourselves to the observance of a ritual in which each passing decade became "the lost decade."
While bad governance stoked these grievances, the rule of law and political freedom, shored up by reforms in the political, administrative and legal systems at all levels, could defuse them. The practice of politics as a public service characterised by austerity, efficiency, honesty, and transparency would have been made possible. And democracy would not suffer from legitimacy crisis.
Therefore, a mere transition to democracy is not enough; rather we have to ensure that our democracy does not suffer any legitimacy crisis again. To many of us, some initiatives in the institutional reforms taken by this caretaker government provide some scope to take some breath, indicating such guarantee in the future. However, a careful thinking frustrates many of us, again. After all, the future governments will be run by our politicians. If they think that these reforms have gone against their will, if they do not gravitate around this government to support the reforms, and if they do not take a vow to protect public interest, this would rather reinforce the confrontation that defined the relationship between the public and politics prior to 1/11 era.
To reverse the relations, it is, therefore, essential to make our politicians and political parties agree with a new democratic management and participation. . We must insist on the importance of taking steps aimed at encouraging liberal political parties to also be the promoters of institutional change. Hence the urgent need to promote reforms such as those recently undertaken by this incumbent government to ensure that political parties are restructured in a bottom-up fashion and promoted as an on-going process. "In fact", says Beatirz Merino, former prime minister of Peru, "modern political parties that don't include institutional change as a priority item on their agenda will not be able to generate opportunities for promoting democracy and strengthening the rule of law".
In the context of these trying times, we ask ourselves, what alternative does exist for Bangladesh? What path should we follow? It should be stressed that the country has behaved like a pendulum, oscillating between 'dictatorships' and weak, partially constructed democracies in which citizens have felt neither represented nor satisfied. And neither option is desirable. Our alternative lies in the urgent need to generate institutional change and create progressive political ideology. Faced with this central requirement of our time, all concerned must work from their principles and convictions to promote economic and political freedom for the people.
(The writer is in the department of CSE, North South University. He can be reached at [email protected])
Today's state of emergency is a manifestation of the fact that the systematic governance did not work well in our country. And we all know how it failed in practice. It is the competing interests of the public and the politics that rendered it ineffective. The process of representation was inequitable, favouring those who could determine their position by the power of money and connection with those holding the leverage of political parties; parliamentary control was nothing but the command of the party (ies) in power, leaving the oppositions to walk out from the parliament now and then and take to the streets to make their points; and the idea of being accountable to the public used to be looked upon as an offence. Consequently, democracy suffered a legitimacy crisis and failed.
Today, the state of emergency has been considered by many as a means to stabilise politics, to restore democracy. All concerned would, at this stage, cherish the hope that a peaceful transition would become possible, and the present state of affairs should provide the conditions for the change. Yet, looking into the future after the expected changeover, this writer does not see reason for much optimism about the future prospects of democracy.
Well, it may be argued that nobody can foretell the future. But this is not foretelling. It is rather a projection about the future. After 37 years of independence, the democracy in Bangladesh has gone through many twists and turns. The road that had once seemed to us free and clear was strewn with obstacles; it would appear that the old ghosts of interventionism, from within and without, were never done away with, entirely. To make matters worse, the political parties, especially the major ones, used to keep rival-scolding as top agenda, instead of trying to excel one another with democratic practices and in thoughtful political maneuverings. As a result, the whole spectrum of politics was monotonous, droning on a "self-defined nationalism"; it was incompetent, impeding any positive visions for change; and it was impotent, failing the opportunities and aspirations of the people to march forward. As a last point, the inability of the political parties to do away with opposing positions helped obstacles to democracy gather force and to push the country to the verge of 'collapse' in 2007.
Why was such failure and uncertainly? The answer is lack of democratic management and the colossal weakness of all democratic institutions. None should forget that during democracy, especially after the era of dictatorship in the 1980s, some institutional reforms with specific goals and objectives to ensure a fair process of representation, greater parliamentary control and accountability to the public were required. But the political parties did give little consideration to the issue. The previous elected governments insisted on making institutional changes in the form of electoral reforms, creation of an independent Anti-Corruption Commission, separation of the judiciary, reform in the Election Commission and so on. But the public demands were not met and nothing was changed during their terms.
Because these crucial structural reforms were not implemented, there was a sign of weakness everywhere. Politics remained laden with incompetence and the public administration was plagued with irregularities; there was little regard for the rule of law. Consequently, favoritism raced with sycophancy to dominate politics; corruption came into the mainstream, and it was almost impossible to distinguish injustice from justice. It is, therefore, no accident that the country has not achieved economic freedom. We were so ensnared that we limited ourselves to the observance of a ritual in which each passing decade became "the lost decade."
While bad governance stoked these grievances, the rule of law and political freedom, shored up by reforms in the political, administrative and legal systems at all levels, could defuse them. The practice of politics as a public service characterised by austerity, efficiency, honesty, and transparency would have been made possible. And democracy would not suffer from legitimacy crisis.
Therefore, a mere transition to democracy is not enough; rather we have to ensure that our democracy does not suffer any legitimacy crisis again. To many of us, some initiatives in the institutional reforms taken by this caretaker government provide some scope to take some breath, indicating such guarantee in the future. However, a careful thinking frustrates many of us, again. After all, the future governments will be run by our politicians. If they think that these reforms have gone against their will, if they do not gravitate around this government to support the reforms, and if they do not take a vow to protect public interest, this would rather reinforce the confrontation that defined the relationship between the public and politics prior to 1/11 era.
To reverse the relations, it is, therefore, essential to make our politicians and political parties agree with a new democratic management and participation. . We must insist on the importance of taking steps aimed at encouraging liberal political parties to also be the promoters of institutional change. Hence the urgent need to promote reforms such as those recently undertaken by this incumbent government to ensure that political parties are restructured in a bottom-up fashion and promoted as an on-going process. "In fact", says Beatirz Merino, former prime minister of Peru, "modern political parties that don't include institutional change as a priority item on their agenda will not be able to generate opportunities for promoting democracy and strengthening the rule of law".
In the context of these trying times, we ask ourselves, what alternative does exist for Bangladesh? What path should we follow? It should be stressed that the country has behaved like a pendulum, oscillating between 'dictatorships' and weak, partially constructed democracies in which citizens have felt neither represented nor satisfied. And neither option is desirable. Our alternative lies in the urgent need to generate institutional change and create progressive political ideology. Faced with this central requirement of our time, all concerned must work from their principles and convictions to promote economic and political freedom for the people.
(The writer is in the department of CSE, North South University. He can be reached at [email protected])