People want democracy that delivers
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
There was a time when dictatorship, centralisation of power and all the other attributes of strong individual dominated regimes used to be at least secretly admired by a large number of people. However, one may cite the anti-autocracy movement of the eighties in Bangladesh as proof of the inaccuracy of the above view. But the ones who really know, know it well that this movement was waged in very large measure by the political parties themselves. The political parties whipped up the movement against Ershad and his regime and it did not seem that a massive countrywide upheaval as a whole , massively participated by the people, led to Ershad's downfall. It was mainly the political parties that maintained their pressure against Ershad and when the same reached a flashpoint and the generals in the cantonment decided to withdraw their support from Ershad, that the die was cast and the autocrat had to leave the centre stage.
It is well known to hard-boiled political observers that it was the then army chief who in a meeting with the army's top brass in the Dhaka cantonment decided that Ershad should no longer be supported. This was the turning point when the autocrat's stepping down was ensured though this event was made to look like a triumph of the people struggling for democracy.
History has two aspects. The formal history that declares certain conclusions or achievements or principles and the real inside history. Thus, the textbooks say that the French revolution was the outburst of pent up feeling of the people as a consequence of the accumulated tyrannies of the Bourbon monarchs over the centuries. But the inside historians showed how the French revolution occurred when it did because there was a relatively weak and effeminate king at the throne, Louis XVI, who possessed none of the tough qualities and manhood of his predecessors in putting down revolts ruthlessly. He was rather a weakling prone to vacillation and meeting opposition with meekness that allowed the revolutionaries to flourish. Thus, according to these realist historians, the revolution could be postponed or never have happened, if there was a stronger personality at the helm of affairs in France.
But as the French revolution happened, there was no looking back. The era of equality, fraternity and brotherhood was ushered in and despots started toppling in Europe. The age of democracy started, by default, in the European stage. Similarly, the fall of Ershad by decisions arrived at behind the wings by the real determinants of power in Bangladesh --the armed forces-- set the stage for a democratic transition. The change was not so much hard fought and wrested away by the people through great sacrifices. It was rather presented to them by some imagintive persons in uniform who were also considerably goaded by external pressures to tread in that path. Thus, democracy came rather as a gift to the people of Bangladesh and it took time for them to realise the fruits of democracy. Thus, long after Ershad's fall, many people were found extolling the virtues of Ershad's benevolent dictatorship and the country's progress under his rule.
But many of these same people with their earlier starry eyed admiration for strongmen, are now seen as changing. They have benefited from democracy. For example, democracy has meant more freedoms that did not exist before. Democracy has meant better electoral practices and greater opportunities to elect parliament's members and others, freely, or for them to be elected. Democracy has meant much more freedoms to be critical about government's policies, to work or to apply pressure to change them. The media even under Ershad was far from being a gagged one. But the media is realising its full potentials under the present system. The relative greater freedoms and powers to dissent, wider socio-economic opportunities and other advantages that democracy have seemingly provided, have won for it many adherents in the middle and upper classes. They would loathe to see these freedoms taken away or controlled under a new strongman in uniform issuing decrees and ensuring subservience of all to them under the threat of application of brute physical force.
But how democracy is perceived by the rank and file of the people or by the teeming millions of ordinary Bangladeshis ? Surely, there was a kind of expectation after the fall of Ershad that democracy would fetch to the masses many gains . They expected rapid gains in the struggle against poverty following the democratic transition, diminishing of corruption, widening of economic opportunities and a sustainable direction for the better in all spheres of national life. In sum, the general people equated democracy with good governance.
A small section of the people but having great influence on national life, the intellectuals , they wanted this democracy to be liberal in nature . From democracy they expected the establishment of the rule of law not in semantics but in reality, effective checks and balances between the three pillars of the state for preventing power concentration and tyranny, complete enjoyment of fundamental human rights, fullest exercise of individual freedoms and political liberties, true independence of the judiciary and practice of the liberal democratic culture and values.
But more than two decades after the so called democratic transition, the expectation of different classes of people about democracy remains grossly unfulfilled in Bangladesh. Neither the expectation of the common man for good governance which he equates with democracy has come even slightly near to fulfillment, nor the longing of the intelligentsia for liberal democracy is anywhere in sight. But the expectations of the people should be the main force driving the political process for that process to claim that it rests on the consent of the people and is, therefore, democratic.
Our politicians need to ponder these issues deeply and mend their ways to be exonerated by the people for their failings so far. People are becoming more and more disgruntled by the illiberal democracy in practice in Bangladesh-today-- which is mainly perceived to be a ruling system to pave the way for satisfying dynastic ambitions, for perpetuating the rule of coteries, the plunder of state resources by vested interest groups and suppression of democratic values and norms by coercive physical power. The country has been made the happy hunting grounds for group interests . Real democracy can have nothing to do with such selfishness devoid of the public good.
The present elected government that got a massive mandate from people for reducing the woes in their life such as from rising prices of essential goods and worse inflation, growing unemployment, severe underperformance of utility services that provide water and power, declining law and order conditions, etc., appears to have accomplished little during the last over one and a half years of its tenure in mitigating these woes of the people. It appears to be quite muddled in the determination of its priorities although it came to power by making a stance before the people that it would go to work from day one in office to address problems which are found too tormenting by the people. But it is seen more engaged in ideological and related issues such as the trial for war crimes in 1971 and amending the Constitution .
Thus, it has failed completely in feeling the pulse of the people who very probably look at settlement of the ideological issues as secondary priorities that can wait while the government ought to go all out to solve problems which are painfully proving to be too distressful in their existence such as poor availability of electricity, sharply declined rate of investments which is causing big drops in job creation, escalating prices of essentials going beyond the purchasing power of the preponderant number in the population, etc.
There was a time when dictatorship, centralisation of power and all the other attributes of strong individual dominated regimes used to be at least secretly admired by a large number of people. However, one may cite the anti-autocracy movement of the eighties in Bangladesh as proof of the inaccuracy of the above view. But the ones who really know, know it well that this movement was waged in very large measure by the political parties themselves. The political parties whipped up the movement against Ershad and his regime and it did not seem that a massive countrywide upheaval as a whole , massively participated by the people, led to Ershad's downfall. It was mainly the political parties that maintained their pressure against Ershad and when the same reached a flashpoint and the generals in the cantonment decided to withdraw their support from Ershad, that the die was cast and the autocrat had to leave the centre stage.
It is well known to hard-boiled political observers that it was the then army chief who in a meeting with the army's top brass in the Dhaka cantonment decided that Ershad should no longer be supported. This was the turning point when the autocrat's stepping down was ensured though this event was made to look like a triumph of the people struggling for democracy.
History has two aspects. The formal history that declares certain conclusions or achievements or principles and the real inside history. Thus, the textbooks say that the French revolution was the outburst of pent up feeling of the people as a consequence of the accumulated tyrannies of the Bourbon monarchs over the centuries. But the inside historians showed how the French revolution occurred when it did because there was a relatively weak and effeminate king at the throne, Louis XVI, who possessed none of the tough qualities and manhood of his predecessors in putting down revolts ruthlessly. He was rather a weakling prone to vacillation and meeting opposition with meekness that allowed the revolutionaries to flourish. Thus, according to these realist historians, the revolution could be postponed or never have happened, if there was a stronger personality at the helm of affairs in France.
But as the French revolution happened, there was no looking back. The era of equality, fraternity and brotherhood was ushered in and despots started toppling in Europe. The age of democracy started, by default, in the European stage. Similarly, the fall of Ershad by decisions arrived at behind the wings by the real determinants of power in Bangladesh --the armed forces-- set the stage for a democratic transition. The change was not so much hard fought and wrested away by the people through great sacrifices. It was rather presented to them by some imagintive persons in uniform who were also considerably goaded by external pressures to tread in that path. Thus, democracy came rather as a gift to the people of Bangladesh and it took time for them to realise the fruits of democracy. Thus, long after Ershad's fall, many people were found extolling the virtues of Ershad's benevolent dictatorship and the country's progress under his rule.
But many of these same people with their earlier starry eyed admiration for strongmen, are now seen as changing. They have benefited from democracy. For example, democracy has meant more freedoms that did not exist before. Democracy has meant better electoral practices and greater opportunities to elect parliament's members and others, freely, or for them to be elected. Democracy has meant much more freedoms to be critical about government's policies, to work or to apply pressure to change them. The media even under Ershad was far from being a gagged one. But the media is realising its full potentials under the present system. The relative greater freedoms and powers to dissent, wider socio-economic opportunities and other advantages that democracy have seemingly provided, have won for it many adherents in the middle and upper classes. They would loathe to see these freedoms taken away or controlled under a new strongman in uniform issuing decrees and ensuring subservience of all to them under the threat of application of brute physical force.
But how democracy is perceived by the rank and file of the people or by the teeming millions of ordinary Bangladeshis ? Surely, there was a kind of expectation after the fall of Ershad that democracy would fetch to the masses many gains . They expected rapid gains in the struggle against poverty following the democratic transition, diminishing of corruption, widening of economic opportunities and a sustainable direction for the better in all spheres of national life. In sum, the general people equated democracy with good governance.
A small section of the people but having great influence on national life, the intellectuals , they wanted this democracy to be liberal in nature . From democracy they expected the establishment of the rule of law not in semantics but in reality, effective checks and balances between the three pillars of the state for preventing power concentration and tyranny, complete enjoyment of fundamental human rights, fullest exercise of individual freedoms and political liberties, true independence of the judiciary and practice of the liberal democratic culture and values.
But more than two decades after the so called democratic transition, the expectation of different classes of people about democracy remains grossly unfulfilled in Bangladesh. Neither the expectation of the common man for good governance which he equates with democracy has come even slightly near to fulfillment, nor the longing of the intelligentsia for liberal democracy is anywhere in sight. But the expectations of the people should be the main force driving the political process for that process to claim that it rests on the consent of the people and is, therefore, democratic.
Our politicians need to ponder these issues deeply and mend their ways to be exonerated by the people for their failings so far. People are becoming more and more disgruntled by the illiberal democracy in practice in Bangladesh-today-- which is mainly perceived to be a ruling system to pave the way for satisfying dynastic ambitions, for perpetuating the rule of coteries, the plunder of state resources by vested interest groups and suppression of democratic values and norms by coercive physical power. The country has been made the happy hunting grounds for group interests . Real democracy can have nothing to do with such selfishness devoid of the public good.
The present elected government that got a massive mandate from people for reducing the woes in their life such as from rising prices of essential goods and worse inflation, growing unemployment, severe underperformance of utility services that provide water and power, declining law and order conditions, etc., appears to have accomplished little during the last over one and a half years of its tenure in mitigating these woes of the people. It appears to be quite muddled in the determination of its priorities although it came to power by making a stance before the people that it would go to work from day one in office to address problems which are found too tormenting by the people. But it is seen more engaged in ideological and related issues such as the trial for war crimes in 1971 and amending the Constitution .
Thus, it has failed completely in feeling the pulse of the people who very probably look at settlement of the ideological issues as secondary priorities that can wait while the government ought to go all out to solve problems which are painfully proving to be too distressful in their existence such as poor availability of electricity, sharply declined rate of investments which is causing big drops in job creation, escalating prices of essentials going beyond the purchasing power of the preponderant number in the population, etc.