… as and when the constitutional provisions obligating the state to ensure the citizens rights get suspended, the people’s political association called ‘democratic republic’ ceases to exist automatically. Under such a circumstance, the state gets divorced from the people and thus loses political legitimacy, while the managers of such a state, which is not organically owned by the people, can in no way claim to be running the affairs of the state on the basis of people’s mandate. Bangladesh, under a prolonged ‘emergency’ with the constitutional rights of the citizens remaining suspended, is now exposed to a situation where the state does not exist as a republic.

by Nurul Kabir

The people of Bangladesh, who secured military victory over the occupational army of Pakistan on this day 36 years ago with a view to politically organising themselves as a democratic republic to realise their political, economic and cultural potentials, are now reeling under the rule of an unelected authority, which is practically accountable to no one. The unelected authority, the ‘non-party caretaker government’ of Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed in other words, has been making decisions on matters of national importance without consulting the people – an idea which is absolutely inconsistent with the notion of democratic republicanism. The armed forces, which had midwifed the birth of the interim government in question in January this year, and presently said to be calling the shots, also remain unaccountable for their deeds and misdeeds for months now – a proposition which is bound to appear as a major impediment towards the need of democratising society and the state. The two unaccountable authorities – the civilian caretaker government and the politically active military junta – have, on the other hand, snatched away the civil, political and cultural rights of the citizens who are actually supposed to have the final say on matters of public importance in a republican democratic dispensation. The citizens’ fundamental rights, guaranteed by the constitution of the republic, have been kept in abeyance by enforcing a ‘state of emergency’ for so many months now, and that too in the name of improving on democratic governance.
   The rulers of the day and their protagonists fail to understand, or perhaps prefer not to understand, the fact that when a people politically organise themselves as a nation state, what they actually do is that they form a political association on the basis of their ‘popular will,’ which is manifested in the constitution of the state. The Bengalis, sitting on the debris of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan after the victory over the latter’s occupational army in December in 1971, desired to politically organise themselves as a democratic republic on the basis of a constitution. The constitution of a state is nothing more or less than a set of conditionalities for the perpetuation of the political association of the people, or a republic in other words. That Bengalis decided to shape their political association in the tune of a ‘democratic republic’ suggests clearly that the popular will of the people was in favour of the citizens playing the decision-making role, through their elected representatives, in running the affairs of the state, and secondly, they made sure that the basic democratic rights of the citizens are clearly laid down in the articles of the constitution of the state. The rights included, among many others, the right to freedom of speech and expression, right to assembly to protest against injustice – political, economic or cultural – etc.
   Now, as and when the constitutional provisions obligating the state to ensure the citizens rights get suspended, the people’s political association called ‘democratic republic’ ceases to exist automatically. Under such a circumstance, the state gets divorced from the people and thus loses political legitimacy, while the managers of such a state, which is not organically owned by the people, can in no way claim to be running the affairs of the state on the basis of people’s mandate. Bangladesh, under a prolonged ‘emergency’ with the constitutional rights of the citizens remaining suspended, is now exposed to a situation where the state does not exist as a republic. But what is ironic is that the head of the caretaker government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, claimed only the other day, on November 14, that the continued ‘state of emergency’ does not have any adverse implications on public life. ‘I don’t think the common people are facing any problems due to continuation of the state of emergency,’ Fakhruddin reportedly told a group of journalists. While Fakhruddin may well be sincere in disclosing his understanding of the situation, no democratic being attending even the kindergarten of political history can afford to ignore such an anti-people statement coming from the head of a modern government, and that too, of a perceived ‘people’s democratic republic.’
   The people of Bangladesh named December 16 as ‘victory day,’ understandably because on this day in 1971 the occupation forces of autocratic Pakistan was officially defeated by the resistance of the freedom fighters aspiring to set up a people’s republic in our geographical territory. It was a victory against the Pakistani rulers’ refusal to honour the people’s mandate to govern the country, against their refusal to put an end to the economic disparity between the citizens spread over two wings of Pakistan, and their refusal to recognise the cultural identity as well as aspirations of the Bengalis – then the majority of Pakistan’s population. Clearly, the freedom, democratic freedom that is, was the prime aspiration of the Bengalis behind their victorious war of national independence, which was eventually manifested, to a large extent, in the constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. But 36 years after the victory, the constitution guaranteeing the promises of fulfilling the aspirations remains suspended, which means there is no freedom. John Locke rightly pointed out in his Two Treaties of Government: ‘…where there is no Law, there is no freedom.’
   The loss of freedom on the part of the citizens is bound to have adverse economic implications on national life as well. That the economic activities under the present regime has stagnated, investments reduced by alarming rates, and thus job opportunities squeezed, inflation crept up, etc could well be attributed to the authoritarian rule of the present regime. It is not for no reason that Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen asserts in his work Development as Freedom that ‘development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systemic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states.’
   The government of Fakhruddin Ahmed and its military associates are free to propagate otherwise, claiming that they have brought in revolutionary changes in various sectors including the economy – a propaganda which is quite in the air. But, to put it in Aldous Huxley’s words, ‘facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.’ The fact remains that the country’s economy has lost momentum since the takeover of power by the military-controlled apolitical government of Fakhruddin, while key to restoration of the economic activities lies with the lifting of the emergency in an emergency basis and handing over power in the quickest possible time.
   Despite the interim government’s weird claim that continued emergency, or unfreedom of the citizens in other words, is not a problem for the people at large, we are well aware of the fact that the incumbents have been continuously breaching a fundamental contract with the citizens. The citizens, as described earlier, formed the political association called ‘people’s democratic republic’ by entering into contract, a social contract that is, among themselves, while the ‘conditions’ of the contract are being laid down in the constitution of the republic. The condition relating to the tenure of a non-party caretaker government is precisely ninety days, during which the caretakers are obligated to hand over power to a government elected directly by the people. The current caretakers have not only failed to hold elections within the constitutionally mandated time frame, they have also determined a time frame of their own, December 2008, or to put it differently, fixed their own tenure for, as it theoretically appears, an unlimited period! Notably, the rule of law, the other name of democratic principles, never ever allows any government, elected or otherwise, an indefinite tenure.
   The two treatises-famed John Locke had his solution to such breach of contract by the authoritarian rulers. In his view, ‘earthly rulers derive their rights not from God, but from contracts made by men, and that the people have a right to rebel against a ruler who betrays that contract.’
   However, rebellion against the rulers clinging to power beyond constitutional mandate should not be for the sake of rebellion only. The rebellion has to be associated with a clear objective of reconstructing a state, in Max Weber’s words, ‘in the sense of a political association with a rational, written constitution, rationally ordained law, and an administration bound to rational rules or laws, administered by trained officials.’ The reconstruction of the people’s republic remains a key primary step toward democratic emancipation of the people, while this remains the task of those who really believe that our freedom fighters had waged the war for freedom 36 years ago to ensure pervasive political, economic and cultural freedoms for the people so that the people can realise their creative human potentials collectively within the framework of rule of law. And for us, at New Age, ‘rule of law’ of means unambiguous equality of citizens before the law that ensures equal social, political and economic opportunities for all the citizens – irrespective of gender, faith and colour.