In modern democracies all elections matter. National, regional and local governments function through elected representatives. That is why elections to the local governments are as important as those to the regional government (in a federation) and local self-governing bodies. Local self-governments, in a sense, more intimately represent the common people. Credible elections to the local governments are particularly important in reclaiming the commons.
In representative democracies the members of parliament (MPs) do represent the common people if the elections are free and fare. Even then, in under-developed democracies they are inadequately accountable to their constituents. In extreme cases of virtually authoritarian democracies they reflect the Rousseau Ian reality: that the voters are free only for one day in every four or five years, when elections are held. In such a situation accountability is tested in intervals of four or five years.
When elections are held under veritable dictatorial rule, elective or non-elective, national elections do not create the desired credibility. Bangladesh is an avowed democracy. All the apparent signs, symbols, processes and procedures appropriate to a democracy are visibly present. Nevertheless, not only the major opposition party which was until the January 05, 2014 polls, the constitutional opposition in parliament denounces the elections as a 'farce'. It also claims that the government formed by the legislators elected as "illegitimate". Anti- or non-Awami League civil society members are also openly critical of the polls. They have broad and steadfast support among many development partners including the USA and the European Union. The ruling party and its allies argued that the low turnout of voters in the national polls was caused by not only the opposition's resistance and boycott but also months-long violent agitation, general strikes and blockades. The opposition replies that it was people's support for their demand for non-party caretaker or interim government during the polls that most voters stayed away. Whatever that may be the elections to the national parliament were completed, though more than half of the seats were filled up by candidates elected unopposed. The government constituted by the 10th parliament is in saddle, how firmly, and for how long one cannot forecast with certainty. It is, however, functioning as a government accepted by all. Even highly critical foreign countries and international organisations are doing business as usual with the government of the day.
The local self-governing bodies, the upazilas of Bangladesh, are having their own elections. These are being held from February in five successive packages, the last one at the end of March. It is no surprise that after the evident failure of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies to resist the parliamentary elections they have participated in the upazila polls. This certainly reflects a shift in their political strategy. They have realised that for reasons they cannot yet fathom popular support could not be mobilised and effectively articulated in favour of their movement. The movement also was tarnished by senseless violence causing loss of lives of common people. It does not matter who committed these crimes. It, however, made people averse to and terrified of violence that occurred. It also gave the ruling party a scope to justify use of craft, cleverness and coercion to hold national polls in time set by the constitution. Nevertheless, its victory left a large space for suspicion and doubt that the elections were not free, fair and credible. Hence, the significance given by both the ruling and opposition parties to the upazila elections.
The existing context has made it possible for all the important parties to participate in the upazila polls. Even the Jamaat-e-Islami, which has lost its registration in the election commission, took part in these so-called non-party elections through its members. In the first two rounds BNP evidently got the upper hand. In the posts of chairmen, more BNP-supported candidates were elected than those supported by the Awami League. The Jamaat also gained some foothold which indicated that despite the ruling party's publicity campaign against its alleged extremism and fundamentalism it could mobilise a measure of support at the local level. The BNP's showing in the first two rounds were certainly encouraging for it. It expressed satisfaction at its performance. It also claimed that its relative lead in these polls proved people's support for their demand for caretaker government and also signified people's lack of faith in the Awami League. The Awami League, on its part, claimed that the conduct of the polls by the government showed that these were free and fair. It also tried to explain its marginal 'defeat' as the result of infighting that occurs normally in the ranks and files of a big popular party.
Whatever that may be, the third round was marked by a larger number of winners of the Awami League. In this round the ruling party supporters won 37 seats of chairman against BNP's 26. Although this round witnessed incidents of violence and ballot box stuffing in several centres elections were held in all but a few upazilas. Up to March 15, the total counts in the seats of chairman were: Awami League 117, BNP 123 and Jamaat 29. If the trend of the third round continues through the 4th and 5th rounds, Awami League and BNP may end up with equal showing. If matters get worse for BNP it may lose its initial lead to the Awami League-supported winning candidates. There is no doubt that the BNP and its allies will continue with accusation against high handedness of the ruling party cadres and the patronage of a partisan field-level bureaucracy. It would also harp on the theme of weak and incompetent Election Commission, which it considers 'servile' to the government. The Awami League as always will deny all the allegations and claim that the elections have been free and fair.
The critical question is the perception of the people. If the voters do not feel that everything was neat and clean there would be a haunting gap of trust. A gap even more yawning than the present one with regard to the national elections of January 05, 2014. These gaps in people's confidence in the government and the political system it runs tend to be dangerous for society and the economy in the longer run.
Everything seems to be OK now. There is political peace and tranquillity of a sort. Government offices and private business are carrying on business "as usual". Educational institutions are running normally. Transport and communications are uninterrupted. The government, the ruling party and its supporters in the media and intellectual circles are citing encouraging statistics. The macro economic picture is also promising. Exports are increasing by some 19 per cent despite adverse conditions of political nature set by some important western development partners. Bangladesh Bank reserve of foreign exchange has crossed the 19-billion-US-dollar mark. Despite political unrest dominating much of 2013, the GDP (gross domestic product) growth is hopefully projected above 6.0 per cent.
Nevertheless, investment and enterprise are still stagnant. It appears that the entrepreneurs are not yet confident of enduring political stability. Many of them have become measurably indebted to banks and financial institutions because of long period of political unrest and turmoil. The share market has been depressingly discouraging. Even after continued efforts, the Bangladesh Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could not evidently restore hope and confidence in the stock markets. On the other hand, banks and financial institutions are groaning under the weight of uninvestable funds and increasing administrative cost. The sources of their funds are also becoming tighter. Banks are wooing away good and big clients from the financial institutions with the lure of lower interest for the entrepreneurs and higher interest for the term depositors. The financial sector is now in a sorry state. But then the financial sector can not be any stronger or more vibrant than the real sectors of the economy. As always the economy moves on the confidence generated by real and enduring political stability. That needs a different approach and strategy of cooperation and harmony between the ruling party and the real opposition.
Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelley, founder Chairman of Centre for Development Research, Bangladesh (CDRB) and Editor quarterly Asian Affairs, was a former teacher of political science           in Dhaka University and former             member of the erstwhile Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) and former               non-partisan technocrat Cabinet Minister of Bangladesh. cdrb@agni.com
Upazila elections, political stability and economic development
Mizanur Rahman Shelley | Published: March 23, 2014 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2024 06:01:00
Share if you like