Responding to people's expectations
M S Haider | Friday, 13 June 2008
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. But many of these same people with their earlier starry-eyed admiration for strongmen in Bangladesh, are now seen as changing.
They have benefited from the operation of a seemingly democratic system during the last decade and a half. Even this democracy on the face of it 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 freedom to be critical about government's policies, to work or to apply pressure to change them.
The media, even under autocratic governance in the eighties, was far from being a gagged one. But the media is now starting to realise its full potential. 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 issuing decrees and ensuring subservience of all to them under the threat of brute physical force. Thus, as speculations were rife in Dhaka a year and half ago about a military takeover in Bangladesh, hearts were gladdened afterwards as the country's military establishment completely quashed such rumours with categorical statements on this matter. But this is looking at only one side of the picture.
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 the autocratic regime in the eighties 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, 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, with 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 seventeen years after the so-called democratic transition, the expectations of different classes of people about democracy remain 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 it 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. The people are cynical and very disgruntled by the illiberal democracy which was in practice in Bangladesh -- until some eighteen months ago -- which they perceived to be a ruling system to mainly pave the way for perpetuating the rule of coteries, the plunder of state resources by the vested interest groups and suppression of democratic values and norms by brute power. The country has been made the happy hunting grounds for group interests. Real democracy can have nothing to do with such crimes and denial of rights.
Thus, people's aspirations are very consistent with the course that the present caretaker government is labouring hard to set for the nation that vitally include deep cleansing the political parties and reforming them, similar reforming of the public administration judiciary, election system, etc. This government will have to be unflinching and absolutely uncompromising in going all the way in respect of the goals that it had set to deliver the country to a much better or healthier state in all respects.
They have benefited from the operation of a seemingly democratic system during the last decade and a half. Even this democracy on the face of it 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 freedom to be critical about government's policies, to work or to apply pressure to change them.
The media, even under autocratic governance in the eighties, was far from being a gagged one. But the media is now starting to realise its full potential. 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 issuing decrees and ensuring subservience of all to them under the threat of brute physical force. Thus, as speculations were rife in Dhaka a year and half ago about a military takeover in Bangladesh, hearts were gladdened afterwards as the country's military establishment completely quashed such rumours with categorical statements on this matter. But this is looking at only one side of the picture.
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 the autocratic regime in the eighties 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, 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, with 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 seventeen years after the so-called democratic transition, the expectations of different classes of people about democracy remain 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 it 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. The people are cynical and very disgruntled by the illiberal democracy which was in practice in Bangladesh -- until some eighteen months ago -- which they perceived to be a ruling system to mainly pave the way for perpetuating the rule of coteries, the plunder of state resources by the vested interest groups and suppression of democratic values and norms by brute power. The country has been made the happy hunting grounds for group interests. Real democracy can have nothing to do with such crimes and denial of rights.
Thus, people's aspirations are very consistent with the course that the present caretaker government is labouring hard to set for the nation that vitally include deep cleansing the political parties and reforming them, similar reforming of the public administration judiciary, election system, etc. This government will have to be unflinching and absolutely uncompromising in going all the way in respect of the goals that it had set to deliver the country to a much better or healthier state in all respects.