The unfinished political reforms
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men --Voltaire
It may be asked whether Bangladeshis, having successfully applied their political consciousness to establish Bangladesh, have been equally successful in using the same consciousness to develop their country in the economic and social sense. The well researched answer to such a query is likely to be strongly in the negative.
Bangladeshis have collectively failed to put pressure on political parties, institutions and governments to work dedicatedly for the country's economic and social development. Thus, they should have only themselves to blame for their present tormented existence. Nobel prize winning poet Rabindranath Tagore in one of his poems memorably stressed that those who tolerate wrongdoings share the same sins and deserve condemnation like the actual doers of the wrong things. What he meant was unless sufficient resolve is created in society to protest and reject evil, conditions will not be there for the triumph of the good. Or till people are conscious enough to rise against or express themselves with enough zest and determination to have removed incompetence, bad governance, corruption, tyrannies, immorality and other ills, the same will hold sway over them and spoil their aspirations for a better tomorrow.
People with the right background, efficiency, dedication and integrity cannot rise up the ladders of political parties in Bangladesh. Rather they are even pushed down if they should reach high positions. One must not restrict the blame to party members for their humiliation. All people in the country are to share the blame.
Politically charged and conscious people voting in massive number for the right candidates could create a revolution in the election history of Bangladesh. Despite the large presence of candidates backed by the power of money and muscle, people were also presented with the choice of relatively better candidates for whom they could cast their votes. But they failed to do this repeatedly which only supports the thinking that political consciousness of people are not well developed and that is why they continue to suffer in all respects.
It is stated in the Holy Koran that Almighty Allah gives the people of a country the sort of leaders they deserve. It can be interpreted to mean that a people who act correctly in choosing their leaders are rewarded with good leaderships and the benefits thereof. The opposite is experienced by a people who fail to select their leaders correctly.
Every day people read in newspapers about how national resources were plundered so massively by politicos, bureaucrats and some wheeler-dealers. The catching and jailing of them by the immediate past caretaker government seemed to enjoy the warm approval of the people for a while. But the memory of our people can be also short. Otherwise, how is it that generally a sort of thinking and feeling has grown among a large section of people that they were better off on the whole under the rule of these persons who came into national focus for their credibly alleged very great corruption and immorality well before the takeover by the immediate past caretaker government.
Surely, a sort of disillusionment with the performance of that caretaker government has a relationship with the mood change. But is it too much to expect that people ought to compartmentalize the two issues : the various inabilities of the caretaker government and the corruption of individuals under past governments. Why the two issues got mixed up together ? While the people had every right to demand and expect better performance from the caretaker government, the same must have no relationship to their remaining very resolved to aspire for the well deserved punishment of those who were charged with corruption if their corruptions are proved. How the highly suspected corrupt ones can regain acceptability and respectability so soon in people's eyes or considered as fit enough to again preside over the country's affairs ?
Did the failures of the caretaker government justify the comeback of thoroughly discredited, self-centred and corrupt elements under past governments ? It was up to the people to keep these issues separated. But they could not or did not do so.
The greatest tragedy in the context of Bangladesh from the time of the takeover by the last caretaker government and now, seems to be the leaving of very vital tasks unaccomplished. The caretakers roused very great hopes of addressing the formidable problem that had been largely at the root of the nation's suffering for the last thirty eight years - its corrupt and inefficient political system and culture. Thus, political reforms of an enduring type--successfully carried out--could be its biggest appreciable legacy. But in this sphere, the caretakers have massively let the country down.
They started with a show of deep resolve to work for a refreshed resumption of politics in the country. But in the middle of their tenure they appeared to lose direction for unknown reasons and reset the goal to only holding elections somehow and transferring power to an elected authority leaving the prior need for indispensable political reforms quite unaddressed.
Thus, politics has again re-emerged in the country in much the same old manner. The main opposition party is again playing the old game of boycotting parliament on not very convincing grounds. The party in power is hardly showing a change of heart that it understands its very high responsibilities --significantly better-- in the backdrop of this country's frustrated experiences to establish a truly beneficial and workable democratic system. The promises of offering or creating a post of the Deputy Speaker in Parliament for the opposition, appears to have been withdrawn or there are no givers or takers of the same. Even the functioning of the parliament with the inclusion of all remains stuck over small vanities of who should sit where and the incapacity of the ruling party with the second highest majority seats ever in parliament to show a bit of magnanimity and flexibility in relation to this issue.
The real worry point for democracy in Bangladesh has always been the very great stubbornness on both sides of the political divide to refuse to work for even an working relationship let alone forge consensus or adopt a bi-partisan attitude on nationally important matters. There is noted no change from these rigid stances although the cumulative political developments since the independence of the country and specially the developments of the last couple of years should have very clearly indicated to the politicians that they must change their ways and instincts to justify their presiding over the country's affairs.
Elected governments in Bangladesh have never tended to remain on course but drifted towards authoritarian activities. But the merit of a beneficial democratic system is its ability to be seen as not using its power ruthlessly and intolerantly. In fact, the greater the number of the ruling party in parliament, the more the onus on it to protect and promote minority voices within and outside parliament to allay fears of tyranny or despotism. But is the ruling party in Bangladesh even conscious of the need of democratizing itself ? As the adage goes, 'charity begins at home.' How can the ruling party in Bangladesh even consider implementing democratic ideas or ideals outside its own confines when democratic impulses within itself gets subdued ? The relationship between a democratic system that delivers and dissent, is an umbilical one - one cannot have meaning without the other. A political system that does not admit or encourage dissent, particularly of the constructive type, cannot earn trust as committed very well to democratic values
The recently concluded session of the Bangladesh Awami League did not reflect any signs particularly that as an entity it would lead the way for the unfinished democratization of Bangladesh. The council session again seemed to confirm victories for the old view of totalitarian control over the party. Dissenters or even imagined dissenters within the party were put down or pushed out of important positions in the party ; their only fault was that they shared the aspiration with the greatest number of conscious Bangladeshis under the caretaker government that political institutions and the political system should be reformed for improved governance of the country in the future.
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men --Voltaire
It may be asked whether Bangladeshis, having successfully applied their political consciousness to establish Bangladesh, have been equally successful in using the same consciousness to develop their country in the economic and social sense. The well researched answer to such a query is likely to be strongly in the negative.
Bangladeshis have collectively failed to put pressure on political parties, institutions and governments to work dedicatedly for the country's economic and social development. Thus, they should have only themselves to blame for their present tormented existence. Nobel prize winning poet Rabindranath Tagore in one of his poems memorably stressed that those who tolerate wrongdoings share the same sins and deserve condemnation like the actual doers of the wrong things. What he meant was unless sufficient resolve is created in society to protest and reject evil, conditions will not be there for the triumph of the good. Or till people are conscious enough to rise against or express themselves with enough zest and determination to have removed incompetence, bad governance, corruption, tyrannies, immorality and other ills, the same will hold sway over them and spoil their aspirations for a better tomorrow.
People with the right background, efficiency, dedication and integrity cannot rise up the ladders of political parties in Bangladesh. Rather they are even pushed down if they should reach high positions. One must not restrict the blame to party members for their humiliation. All people in the country are to share the blame.
Politically charged and conscious people voting in massive number for the right candidates could create a revolution in the election history of Bangladesh. Despite the large presence of candidates backed by the power of money and muscle, people were also presented with the choice of relatively better candidates for whom they could cast their votes. But they failed to do this repeatedly which only supports the thinking that political consciousness of people are not well developed and that is why they continue to suffer in all respects.
It is stated in the Holy Koran that Almighty Allah gives the people of a country the sort of leaders they deserve. It can be interpreted to mean that a people who act correctly in choosing their leaders are rewarded with good leaderships and the benefits thereof. The opposite is experienced by a people who fail to select their leaders correctly.
Every day people read in newspapers about how national resources were plundered so massively by politicos, bureaucrats and some wheeler-dealers. The catching and jailing of them by the immediate past caretaker government seemed to enjoy the warm approval of the people for a while. But the memory of our people can be also short. Otherwise, how is it that generally a sort of thinking and feeling has grown among a large section of people that they were better off on the whole under the rule of these persons who came into national focus for their credibly alleged very great corruption and immorality well before the takeover by the immediate past caretaker government.
Surely, a sort of disillusionment with the performance of that caretaker government has a relationship with the mood change. But is it too much to expect that people ought to compartmentalize the two issues : the various inabilities of the caretaker government and the corruption of individuals under past governments. Why the two issues got mixed up together ? While the people had every right to demand and expect better performance from the caretaker government, the same must have no relationship to their remaining very resolved to aspire for the well deserved punishment of those who were charged with corruption if their corruptions are proved. How the highly suspected corrupt ones can regain acceptability and respectability so soon in people's eyes or considered as fit enough to again preside over the country's affairs ?
Did the failures of the caretaker government justify the comeback of thoroughly discredited, self-centred and corrupt elements under past governments ? It was up to the people to keep these issues separated. But they could not or did not do so.
The greatest tragedy in the context of Bangladesh from the time of the takeover by the last caretaker government and now, seems to be the leaving of very vital tasks unaccomplished. The caretakers roused very great hopes of addressing the formidable problem that had been largely at the root of the nation's suffering for the last thirty eight years - its corrupt and inefficient political system and culture. Thus, political reforms of an enduring type--successfully carried out--could be its biggest appreciable legacy. But in this sphere, the caretakers have massively let the country down.
They started with a show of deep resolve to work for a refreshed resumption of politics in the country. But in the middle of their tenure they appeared to lose direction for unknown reasons and reset the goal to only holding elections somehow and transferring power to an elected authority leaving the prior need for indispensable political reforms quite unaddressed.
Thus, politics has again re-emerged in the country in much the same old manner. The main opposition party is again playing the old game of boycotting parliament on not very convincing grounds. The party in power is hardly showing a change of heart that it understands its very high responsibilities --significantly better-- in the backdrop of this country's frustrated experiences to establish a truly beneficial and workable democratic system. The promises of offering or creating a post of the Deputy Speaker in Parliament for the opposition, appears to have been withdrawn or there are no givers or takers of the same. Even the functioning of the parliament with the inclusion of all remains stuck over small vanities of who should sit where and the incapacity of the ruling party with the second highest majority seats ever in parliament to show a bit of magnanimity and flexibility in relation to this issue.
The real worry point for democracy in Bangladesh has always been the very great stubbornness on both sides of the political divide to refuse to work for even an working relationship let alone forge consensus or adopt a bi-partisan attitude on nationally important matters. There is noted no change from these rigid stances although the cumulative political developments since the independence of the country and specially the developments of the last couple of years should have very clearly indicated to the politicians that they must change their ways and instincts to justify their presiding over the country's affairs.
Elected governments in Bangladesh have never tended to remain on course but drifted towards authoritarian activities. But the merit of a beneficial democratic system is its ability to be seen as not using its power ruthlessly and intolerantly. In fact, the greater the number of the ruling party in parliament, the more the onus on it to protect and promote minority voices within and outside parliament to allay fears of tyranny or despotism. But is the ruling party in Bangladesh even conscious of the need of democratizing itself ? As the adage goes, 'charity begins at home.' How can the ruling party in Bangladesh even consider implementing democratic ideas or ideals outside its own confines when democratic impulses within itself gets subdued ? The relationship between a democratic system that delivers and dissent, is an umbilical one - one cannot have meaning without the other. A political system that does not admit or encourage dissent, particularly of the constructive type, cannot earn trust as committed very well to democratic values
The recently concluded session of the Bangladesh Awami League did not reflect any signs particularly that as an entity it would lead the way for the unfinished democratization of Bangladesh. The council session again seemed to confirm victories for the old view of totalitarian control over the party. Dissenters or even imagined dissenters within the party were put down or pushed out of important positions in the party ; their only fault was that they shared the aspiration with the greatest number of conscious Bangladeshis under the caretaker government that political institutions and the political system should be reformed for improved governance of the country in the future.