Political reform: Can Caretaker address "politicism" in Bangladesh?
Saturday, 28 July 2007
Md. Saidul Islam
ONE of the most conspicuous trends in Bangladesh politics before 1/11 was broadly its bifurcation into two distinct camps: the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led coalition with right wing nationalist and Islamic political parties, and the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL)-led alliance with left wing secular parties. Notwithstanding the fact that these two camps are in vulnerable situation due to the current political climate, they are still in dominating positions as no third viable political alternative has effectively been emerged.
While many argue that weakening or emasculating these two distinct political groups can be a viable route to political reform, I argue in contrast that no reform can prove successful and effective for a long time unless the very complex web of "politicism" developed amid the tumultuous political practices over the last three decades is subdued.
What I mean by "politicism" is the boiling down of all social affairs into politics, and not the other way around. Politicism emerges when politics become a sole overarching unit, upon which all social affairs and activities become contingent, and to which everything in society gets subservient and subordinated. Although politics is one of dominant social institutions that exerts power and prestige, it is not the only institution that has the optimum power. In a pluralist democratic society such as the United States or Canada, other institutions and agencies such as educational institutions and its intellectuals, civil society, special interest groups-to name a few-can also have parallel power alongside politics. The problem arises when all these human agencies become contingent upon, and submissive to, politics and not vice-versa. Politics then dictates every human agency and limits human freedom and autonomy. This problematic relation between politics and other human agencies, i.e., the subordination of freedom of a human agency to politics, is a great hindrance to a country's development and progress.
The impasse that we are facing in Bangladesh is not due to politics, but unfortunately politicism. A university professor-being an intellectual-should enjoy enough prestige, more than, or at least similar to that of a political leader. However, as politicism has taken a dominant cultural shape in Bangladesh, his/her intellectual capability and leadership role in the intellectual milieu is bogged down unless he/she subscribes to, or is submerged in, a particular-usually dominant-political party. He/she cannot dictate, but unfortunately is dictated by politics and its leaders, though in most cases the professor is more capable than the political leader(s).
The long-term effects of politicism are quite remarkable and striking. First, politics transcends all barriers and enter into day to day life of people. All social contracts and relations such as marriage, business, codes of conduct, family relations, etc., are shaped by, and organised under the banner of politics. Politics becomes an axis around which people organise their activities and behave as "political beings" rather than social being of individual standing.
Second, politicism limits freedom and liberty since no new thought for development and prosperity flourishes as it should. As politics dictates everything, people cannot think beyond their narrow political dogma. Thinking process of most people is bogged down to a narrow political boundary. They cannot enjoy freedom beyond that limited political prison.
Third, politicism leads to a normalisation of power. Important human traits, such as honesty, intellectuality, integrity, sincerity etc., get less value, while political affiliation and closeness to political leaders and bureaucracy become a huge market currency. People gradually run after this political currency, and leave the essential traits, which are of paramount need for development and progress. Political influence and power on every human being gradually becomes normalised, and people accept it as a norm for society. While in a democratic society legal institutions are supposed to operate freely and authoritatively, politicism makes them subservient to politics and its leaders. Society then witnesses gross injustice, godfathers and money politics, as well as minority oppression.
Fourth, politicism hinders an emergence of a vibrant civil society and other human agencies to exert positive social change. As ruling party remains more busy with confronting opposition, so does the opposition party, facing and retorting confrontation from both position and opposition become the main feature of the society, and that leaves a very narrow scope for a vibrant civil society to emerge.
Fifth, politics become a lucrative career at that time. Students put more emphasis on being a leader of a political party's student wing than on studying hard for better future. Since getting a job is increasingly dependent more on having political links than on better academic records, many students start to think and subscribe the idea that politics will-though highly rugged way to travel-provide a better future than doing well in education, and doing well in education will have less currency than having a good political career. To make it simpler, education will have less or no value unless there is any political link. Getting closeness to the political leaders to achieve their favour then becomes an ultimate aim in life for many students. Gradually, politics permeates over all educational institutions. Political slogan, rather than study, becomes the main activity in campus. Teachers-for their promotion, position, facilities (as all these are contingent upon the favour of a political party/ parties/ leaders)-sell off their dignity to the political leaders and try to buy a new political flavour for their career. Gradually, politics becomes an overarching frame under which everything gets boiled. Because of the culture of politicism, many students get degree but without proper qualities to face challenges of the modern days. Since politics gets supreme power on campus in few hands, other students tend to be precluded and thereafter a sound academic atmosphere for them is also compromised.
Sixth, as culture of politicism reigns society, people become more interested in developing traits of politics-such as chanting great slogans to appease and extol political leaders, eulogising own political party, nurturing lobbying capacity, sometimes using arms and violence to influence and dictate local vicinity-than human traits for social and economic development such as honesty, knowledge, patriotism, civic sense, and so forth.
What we have been witnessing over last three decades is that everything in Bangladesh has been boiled down to politics, and not the other way around. Politicism has grown so pervasively that the ruling party leaves a very narrow space for the opposition to exert their political will. As the opposition is normally bereft of any development activities in Bangladesh, this-along with other factors-leads to destructive political agendas such as strike, violence, arms struggle and so on. Any kind of political reform will go in vain unless this very nexus of politicism is subdued and people are allowed to express their will freely and meaningfully. People will then dictate-and not be dictated by-politics.
(The writer is a PhD candidate (Sociology) at York University, Canada, and an IDRC (International Development Research Centre) Doctoral Research Fellow. He can be reached at [email protected])
ONE of the most conspicuous trends in Bangladesh politics before 1/11 was broadly its bifurcation into two distinct camps: the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led coalition with right wing nationalist and Islamic political parties, and the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL)-led alliance with left wing secular parties. Notwithstanding the fact that these two camps are in vulnerable situation due to the current political climate, they are still in dominating positions as no third viable political alternative has effectively been emerged.
While many argue that weakening or emasculating these two distinct political groups can be a viable route to political reform, I argue in contrast that no reform can prove successful and effective for a long time unless the very complex web of "politicism" developed amid the tumultuous political practices over the last three decades is subdued.
What I mean by "politicism" is the boiling down of all social affairs into politics, and not the other way around. Politicism emerges when politics become a sole overarching unit, upon which all social affairs and activities become contingent, and to which everything in society gets subservient and subordinated. Although politics is one of dominant social institutions that exerts power and prestige, it is not the only institution that has the optimum power. In a pluralist democratic society such as the United States or Canada, other institutions and agencies such as educational institutions and its intellectuals, civil society, special interest groups-to name a few-can also have parallel power alongside politics. The problem arises when all these human agencies become contingent upon, and submissive to, politics and not vice-versa. Politics then dictates every human agency and limits human freedom and autonomy. This problematic relation between politics and other human agencies, i.e., the subordination of freedom of a human agency to politics, is a great hindrance to a country's development and progress.
The impasse that we are facing in Bangladesh is not due to politics, but unfortunately politicism. A university professor-being an intellectual-should enjoy enough prestige, more than, or at least similar to that of a political leader. However, as politicism has taken a dominant cultural shape in Bangladesh, his/her intellectual capability and leadership role in the intellectual milieu is bogged down unless he/she subscribes to, or is submerged in, a particular-usually dominant-political party. He/she cannot dictate, but unfortunately is dictated by politics and its leaders, though in most cases the professor is more capable than the political leader(s).
The long-term effects of politicism are quite remarkable and striking. First, politics transcends all barriers and enter into day to day life of people. All social contracts and relations such as marriage, business, codes of conduct, family relations, etc., are shaped by, and organised under the banner of politics. Politics becomes an axis around which people organise their activities and behave as "political beings" rather than social being of individual standing.
Second, politicism limits freedom and liberty since no new thought for development and prosperity flourishes as it should. As politics dictates everything, people cannot think beyond their narrow political dogma. Thinking process of most people is bogged down to a narrow political boundary. They cannot enjoy freedom beyond that limited political prison.
Third, politicism leads to a normalisation of power. Important human traits, such as honesty, intellectuality, integrity, sincerity etc., get less value, while political affiliation and closeness to political leaders and bureaucracy become a huge market currency. People gradually run after this political currency, and leave the essential traits, which are of paramount need for development and progress. Political influence and power on every human being gradually becomes normalised, and people accept it as a norm for society. While in a democratic society legal institutions are supposed to operate freely and authoritatively, politicism makes them subservient to politics and its leaders. Society then witnesses gross injustice, godfathers and money politics, as well as minority oppression.
Fourth, politicism hinders an emergence of a vibrant civil society and other human agencies to exert positive social change. As ruling party remains more busy with confronting opposition, so does the opposition party, facing and retorting confrontation from both position and opposition become the main feature of the society, and that leaves a very narrow scope for a vibrant civil society to emerge.
Fifth, politics become a lucrative career at that time. Students put more emphasis on being a leader of a political party's student wing than on studying hard for better future. Since getting a job is increasingly dependent more on having political links than on better academic records, many students start to think and subscribe the idea that politics will-though highly rugged way to travel-provide a better future than doing well in education, and doing well in education will have less currency than having a good political career. To make it simpler, education will have less or no value unless there is any political link. Getting closeness to the political leaders to achieve their favour then becomes an ultimate aim in life for many students. Gradually, politics permeates over all educational institutions. Political slogan, rather than study, becomes the main activity in campus. Teachers-for their promotion, position, facilities (as all these are contingent upon the favour of a political party/ parties/ leaders)-sell off their dignity to the political leaders and try to buy a new political flavour for their career. Gradually, politics becomes an overarching frame under which everything gets boiled. Because of the culture of politicism, many students get degree but without proper qualities to face challenges of the modern days. Since politics gets supreme power on campus in few hands, other students tend to be precluded and thereafter a sound academic atmosphere for them is also compromised.
Sixth, as culture of politicism reigns society, people become more interested in developing traits of politics-such as chanting great slogans to appease and extol political leaders, eulogising own political party, nurturing lobbying capacity, sometimes using arms and violence to influence and dictate local vicinity-than human traits for social and economic development such as honesty, knowledge, patriotism, civic sense, and so forth.
What we have been witnessing over last three decades is that everything in Bangladesh has been boiled down to politics, and not the other way around. Politicism has grown so pervasively that the ruling party leaves a very narrow space for the opposition to exert their political will. As the opposition is normally bereft of any development activities in Bangladesh, this-along with other factors-leads to destructive political agendas such as strike, violence, arms struggle and so on. Any kind of political reform will go in vain unless this very nexus of politicism is subdued and people are allowed to express their will freely and meaningfully. People will then dictate-and not be dictated by-politics.
(The writer is a PhD candidate (Sociology) at York University, Canada, and an IDRC (International Development Research Centre) Doctoral Research Fellow. He can be reached at [email protected])