ANALYSIS
No more a pawn
The real role and function for us, the citizens, begins now. We need to ensure that we have a functioning as well as a truly democratic and accountable government in place. We need to find our own mechanisms on to how to ensure true representation of the majority of the people, the toiling masses, women and men from all religions, ethnicity, occupations and classes, particularly the down trodden. That is the main challenge,
writes Khushi Kabir
During elections, especially National Elections, the nation gets energised with deciding the fate of the Nation. Though for some, there exists frustration, a feeling of ennui that this is a farce, but for most, elections dominate discussions at the household level, at social gatherings, at public places and in the media. I find that whether in the villages I travel to, or in Dhaka, this is the main topic of conversation. The long awaited elections are eventually happening! But what of the long two years wait itself? Was it necessary for Bangladesh’s democracy? Has it changed the nature of how elections are to be conducted and the systems within the parties itself, of selecting their candidates? Has the Election Commission really shown its teeth and proven its ability to act independently from the government in power? In other words has the two years that the ‘caretaker government’ under the ‘care’ of the armed forces, taken to prepare itself to enable them to perform and conduct the elections effectively and efficiently, really been worth the wait?
We need to assess the performance and role of the government in light of ‘reforming’ the election process itself, whether these ‘reforms’ have impacted upon the political parties or the electorate. This is crucial for the present as well as future elections. Why did we need two caretaker governments and changes in the council of advisers within a span of two years instead of the three month period? Is such a period of undemocratic rule needed each time we elect a government? Will this be required every time our political parties fail, stumble, hiccup while attempting to ensure democracy and accountability? The role of this caretaker government is unclear. The self declared agenda to reform political processes was limited to selectively targeting individuals. The recent spurt of withdrawal of extortion cases against the leaders proves this point.
It did not attempt to include people at large in their efforts to reform systems, neither party workers nor their rank and file.
Our political parties are yet to realise that those who vote them into power, their constituents, are the ones that matter. In a democracy, based on the principle of ‘one person, one vote’, that is obvious. Unfortunately, the parties and their leaders tend to cater to the minority, but the dominant class of people with funds and power, whether muscle, financial, religious or political. This is supported and enhanced by external interests, not just for Bangladesh, but most other countries like ours. Globalisation is not just economic domination but political control as well, with geo-political dynamics playing a very crucial role. Events taking place in nearby countries illustrate this further. Thailand, where the elected government, albeit corrupt, but elected nevertheless, could be overthrown by a group of urban and elite minority, primarily because of their support from royalty and the army (some of the members of the new cabinet having doubtful reputations). In Pakistan, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the subsequent events within and in the region. The media’s role in creating an Islamic terrorist image juxtaposed with the recent events in Mumbai. The role of the international media, more concerned with events at the Taj and the Trident, rather than the Victoria Terminus, the same media who were somehow not as forthcoming during the time of the Gujrat massacre, the demolition of Babri Masjid, the horrifying attacks on the Christian Nuns in Orissa, in terms of identifying which acts are globally more newsworthy than others, all point towards certain images that are pre-imposed upon us. Global interests failed to address the issue of war crimes of our secular Liberation War of 1971. Those who killed and raped us misused the name of religion because socialism was the threat then.
So what does this have to do with our own elections and how does this relate to the points raised before. The role and effectiveness of the current government and how has it impacted the behaviour of the voters and the political parties are important. The point to be noted is that while we act as citizens in asserting our right to vote, we need to be aware of what is happening and what will in fact be ‘allowed’ to happen. There is a feeling of festivity regarding the upcoming elections, though less exuberant than the past. This cannot be singularly contributed to the ‘reformed’ election rules. Political parties have not yet been able to muster the kind of organization required to get into action in full swing. Last minute change of candidates, last minute consolidation of alliance partners, getting green signal from the courts or the Election Commission, after having first been disqualified, not to mention sudden and late release of senior leaders from prison or returning to Bangladesh, are more responsible for the less vigorous campaigning. My prediction is that in the last few days election fervour will be just as before. Already it is rumoured that certain candidates have begun their election spending spree. Profiles of the candidates do not show that representatives of the poorest and the most socially, economically and culturally deprived have been given nominations. Majority of the candidates are elitist. New faces are often relations of those who were unable participate in the elections. This does not in any way signify change. We apprehend the Election Commission may be too busy reprinting and updating ballot papers to take full cognisance of adherence of election rules and may be unable to play a desired, decisive and timely role this time either. If we observe the roles that have been played by various non political party actors, including diplomats and others, during the last two and a half years, in ‘guiding’ us, we wonder as to how the new government will sustain democracy and independence. So what were these past two years all about? Will we know once the elections are held, results announced, results accepted and the parliament starts functioning?
The real role and function for us, the citizens, begins now. We need to ensure that we have a functioning as well as a truly democratic and accountable government in place. We need to find our own mechanisms on to how to ensure true representation of the majority of the people, the toiling masses, women and men from all religions, ethnicity, occupations and classes, particularly the down trodden. That is the main challenge. Round table conferences, TV talk shows are an extremely limited outlet catering and reaching out to a few. Lobbying by economically powerful groups is used to get bills passed that serve their interests. Those that act for the poor will never find these implemented due to the same vested interests.
Maybe we could just make it work. As a nation that fought such a valiant and true liberation war, we can and will stand up. We need to remind ourselves that this was our war which we won. A war that rejected religion as the basis of our nationality, upholding secularism, socialism and defining our own cultural and social identity has to be reiterated. Whereas we recognise the support given to us by India, India too has to remember that the only war they ever won against Pakistan was our Liberation War. But for the people of Bangladesh and all the millions of freedom fighters, this war would not have been won. We first need to be clear in rejecting the negative brainwashing and dogma that the past has burdened us with. War criminals and their collaborators need to be rooted out and tried, just as the military rulers and dictators need to be challenged. We can then stand up without being a pawn in any global power’s religious, economic or political agenda. This should be the thrust for this election.
Khushi Kabir is a development activist and coordinator of Nijera Kori, a non-governmental organisation
BALLOTSBLOG
Wanted: Lawmakers
In our country, we seem not to understand the difference between the responsibilities of a member of parliament and those of local government institutions. Parliamentarians, and candidates for parliamentary seats, themselves are often confused. Ask any candidate for the upcoming general elections what they will do if elected and they will tell you about the school they want to build, or the road they want to fix, or the old factory they want to regenerate — none of which falls within the remit of these to-be parliamentarians. Instead, they are supposed to make laws, or to scrap them, or to amend them.
Parliamentarians are lawmakers, not school-builders. However, partly because of their lack of understanding of their actual role, and partly because the electorate expect these things from their member of parliament rather than from their local governments, our parliamentarians have traditionally been glorified lobbyists for their constituents who can’t find time to attend parliament because they wait for hours outside ministers’ offices to lobby for a bridge or a health complex to be built in their constituency. That is also what their re-election often depends upon: how much of the government’s attention they were able to direct to their particular area.
Can we expect the parliament that will be elected tomorrow to be different in this regard from previous parliaments? Will members of parliament actually attend parliament, putting an end to the perennial quorum crisis, and legislate on their constituents’ behalf, rather than lobbying ministers for handouts. Will they explain to their constituents that building a local school is not their responsibility, but the responsibility of their local government representatives? From what we have seen of the campaigns, and from what we have read of the candidates’ pledges, there is no reason to hold out much hope.
— Shameran Abed
VOXPOP
‘Do you believe the upcoming national elections, scheduled for December 29, will be free, fair and credible?’ Ariful Islam Mithu asks people in Dhaka
Mohammad Mohib, factory worker
The elections will be free and fair. I think the polling will be smooth and there will not be any chaos this time. I do not think there will be questions regarding its credibility.
Md Ziaul Haque, pharmacist
This government has taken various steps and passed laws to make the elections free, fair and credible and the prevailing situation indicates that the polls will be fair and neutral.
Bishwa Pratik Shah, student
Of course, the election will be neutral. The caretaker government has been working for two years for a fair election. I do not think this election will be unfair or manipulated.
Md Nizam Chowdhury, businessman
The election this year will not be fair in any way because the government could not do its self-assigned tasks that it had declared at the very beginning. I do not know why, but the government has retreated.
Adnan Morshed, student
I think, it is better to say that I hope the elections will be credible because generally in the run up to national polls there is a strong role of muscle and money which is absent this time.
Yasin Ali, rickshaw-puller
I am a rickshaw puller I do not understand so much. But considering the work this government has done and given the indications so far. I think the elections will be fair. God willing!
Jesmin Jahan, student
I feel the poll will not be neutral as I have never seen any fair election in my life. This time too, the two leading political parties have tried to gear themselves up for winning the election.
Polash Rashed, service holder
I am really suspicious about the neutrality of this poll. The government came to power with a catchy slogan of eradicating corruption, restoring good governance, etc. But they too in the end, set the ‘corrupted’ politicians free.
READERSPEAK
Contest elections with ideas, not violence
Bangladesh has undergone some drastic reforms in election laws meant to ensure that a free and fair election can be conducted. Legislations aside, another crucial element to a credible election is the absence of violence.
The country is unfortunate to be tainted by a history of election-related violence and preliminary findings by Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) observers have shown that this is a major concern for voters.
Now that the state of emergency is lifted, it is up to the political parties to contest with their ideas and policies to fulfil the aspirations of the voters, instead of resorting to violence and intimidation.
Somsri Han-anuntasuk
Executive director, Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)
‘Change we need’
Any one reading the heading would think that I am a Barack Obama fan!
I am, however, writing ‘Change we need’ for the welfare of Bangladesh. Bangladesh unquestionably needs a change. If we look back at the last 20 years we will find political instability, corruption, terrorism and many more evils like these engulfing this nation.
Today when I look at the country I live, I feel infuriated. And I also feel that other people also feel in the similar way. Just look at the people who used to run the country!
I would like to remind people that in 1971 we fought for the independence of Bangladesh and now we need to call for a fight for the freedom of the people of this independent country...
So let’s get united and bring a change — it’s needed...
Faiyad Rahman Chowdhury
A-level student, via e-mail
New Age opinion poll — some questions
The New Age deserves special mention for publishing an opinion poll conducted between December 15 and 18 on 1,220 registered voters, by an unnamed leading company. The poll deserves scrutiny since the business is conducted for an independent newspaper and sample is drawn to reflect the opinions of specific demographics. This is perceived to be scientific and approximately right in contrast to in vogue web or mobile SMS polls.
An assessment on the reliability of a poll depends on the details of the survey. A sound poll attempts to reduce sampling error and systemic bias. Sampling error reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The New Age Opinion Poll does not specify the sampling design it has in the survey. If the sample design is prone to inappropriateness, a large number of sampling error could occur.
It also does not spell out the percentage of margin of error, the survey has considered. If the sample size is small, the margin of error is large. If such is the case, the case sample is suffered with non representativeness. The polls findings should have accompanied margin of error, which is a universal norm.
The report states that one hundred and twenty starting points were randomly selected from the voters’ roll. The reports do not mention about all the registered voters across the 90 wards of the Dhaka City Corporation were divided into starting points. It also does not mention total numbers of starting points. The survey states that all social classes were covered. It cannot be confirmed that all social classes are included because ten households were visited from each starting point using the right-hand rule which is a special type of systematic sampling.
Moreover, there is no specification about the size of starting points. If there is a hidden periodicity in the population, systematic sampling will prove to be an inefficient method of sampling. In systematic sampling only the first unit is selected randomly and the remaining units of the sample are selected at fixed intervals. So we would either get all poor class or all rich class respondents in the sample depending upon the random starting position.
This caution applies forcefully to conclusions about other subgroups. As a result, too small a subsample is difficult to support any but the most general findings.
The survey, as it seems is, one-off, and thus, it would not be possible to reduce the margin of error, as these are done alternatively by relying on poll averages. This makes the assumption that the procedure is similar enough between many different polls and uses the sample size of each poll to create a polling average. Thus, there are possibilities of findings being closer to reality. Moreover, the potential for voters to switch their choice of party or candidate, it is important to follow the polls to track the ebb and flow of public opinion during an election campaign.
In normal circumstances and as per international standards, a survey, particularly election related opinion polls observe full information disclosure policy, particularly on the processes relating to data gathering.
It is unclear about the wording of the questions, the order in which these were asked and the number and form of alternative answers were offered. On a same issue, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys. It cannot be made sure whether the surveyors engaged in the field used techniques such as rotating the order in which questions are asked, or many pollsters practised split-sample technique.
A fundamental problem with opinion polls is undefined depth of support for specific parties. It is not clear the level of softness the surveyors had on each of the parties mentioned.
The New Age Poll also does not deal with two major issues that are come to be known as volatility and second choices. The poll restricts to two alliances, and deprives the respondents with other choices and options.
There are common issues such as no-response bias — some people do not speak their minds to strangers, occurrence of which is of high degree in Bangladesh. Alternatively, the results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This is hugely common.
Also, we do not know how outliers were interpreted, what the standard deviation was, whether any attempt was made at triangulation, or about any weighting. The public could have benefitted from knowing these.
Khurshid Ahmed,
Dhanmondi, Dhaka
Bihari issue
The integration of the Urdu-speaking community, commonly known as Biharis, in the mainstream is a social issue. It is no longer a political one. Granting them Bangladeshi citizenship and enlisting them in the voters’ list were welcome steps forward. Their enthusiasm and satisfaction over their new-found pride and honour are touching and overwhelming. Any conscious citizen of Bangladesh will feel proud on this development.
MH Khan
Via e-mail
‘Projection’ politics
Over the last few decades, Bangladesh has developed some ‘unique’ forms of political culture, which have not only retarded social and economic developments as expected but also have pushed the whole nation towards backwardness. ‘Projection’ is one of the conspicuous political traits grossly practised in Bangladesh.
In social science, ‘projection’ is used to denote a source of prejudice and discrimination in a multi-racial society. Many people have personal traits that they consider undesirable. They wish to rid themselves of those traits, but they cannot always do it directly either because they find the effort too difficult or because they are unable to admit to themselves that they possess those traits. They may relieve their tension by attributing the unwanted traits to others, often members of another group. This makes it possible for them to reject and condemn the traits without rejecting and condemning themselves. Since the emotional pressures underlying projection can be very intense, it is difficult to counter them with rational arguments.
We often find the similar pattern in Bangladesh politics. The mainstream political parties spend much of their time and energy projecting their political opponents with various negative connotations and labels, but unfortunately they themselves are the best examples of those labels. They cannot in reality escape themselves from those negative images.
The purpose of the projection politics is clear: first, they want to erase their gilts by projecting others in the similar fashion. Secondly, they want to divert people’s attention from themselves to their political opponents. Finally, when the leaders do not have much to say about their achievements and vision of progress, they indulge in projection politics.
This deviant practice turns the nation towards hatred, division, concoction of lies, silly-mentality, and deterioration of self-esteem. The political leaders can therefore be easily used as trump-cards by the imperialist foreign powers.
Bangladesh politics is unfortunately witnessing a resurgence of various dirty practices, including projection politics, in the wake of the upcoming general election.
Dr M Saidul Islam
Visiting Assistant Professor (Sociology), College of William and Mary (University), USA
Elections 2008: What is at stake?
by Dr Ahmad Ahsan
ON DECEMBER 29, Bangladeshis will vote in a general election. Election fever has gripped the country for several weeks now. The political leaders are holding public meetings with a pace and intensity that would defeat most ordinary mortals. Normally invisible persons – a middle-aged working lady walking in the street, a frail working man wearing a worn-out sweater, a gathering of people huddled outside a tea stall – appear on television news courted by the media and by the politicians. They insist they will be scrutinising the candidates and only the deserving will earn their votes. They confidently voice their opinions, pointing out in impressive detail development problems that affect their lives: how particular roads have deteriorated into potholes, why the bridge over there needs to be built, where riverbanks need to be protected, how jobs need to be provided, how that candidate was never really seen in the area since the last election. Sometimes, the voters are physically embraced by the candidates. It is as if the people are being embraced by the politicians, as they are all over the world during elections. It is an impressive picture of the drama of democracy unfolding: the people consciously and enthusiastically participating in choosing their lawmakers and the next government. They are aware of what is at stake.
The stake is high
MUCH is at stake, indeed, in the successful holding of our next elections. Can Bangladesh continue its journey since 1991 as a constitutionally governed, democratic state? Will our governments have the legitimacy of being elected by the people and being held accountable to the people for its performance? Can there be transfer of power through a constitutionally approved process? Can the people, especially in rural areas, be heard through elections? Or will Bangladesh take the path of some countries where, in the name of good governance and anti-corruption, the urban elite takes upon itself the power to determine the good of the people and the country? These are critically important questions upon which the future of our nation depends.
There are two important reasons for thinking that the future of Bangladesh is at stake in a way it has never been before. First, Bangladesh made remarkable progress under democracy and constitutional rule since 1991, which may come under threat without a successful return to democratic rule. This is not to say things could not have been better; far from it indeed, but its relevance is not very clear at this point. Second, our history and culture argue that Bangladesh cannot be effectively governed without the participation of our people that only democratic and constitutional rule can provide. Together, these two points suggest our progress and our future will be in grave danger without a successful return to democratic rule through the next elections. Let us take each of these two points in turn.
First, contrary to perceptions among some sections of the urban elite, Bangladesh made remarkable progress since 1991 after constitutional rule was restored. Consider the following facts:
Under democracy our per capita economic growth rate nearly tripled. It rose from an anaemic 1.2 per cent growth per annum between 1976 and 1989 to a robust 3.2 per cent between 1990 and 2005 (Bangladesh: Strategy for Sustained Growth, The World Bank, Bangladesh Development Series, Number 17, June 2007, pp 4). No, this was not part of a worldwide trend: half of the low-income countries, a group to which our country belongs, grew only at a rate of 1.7 per cent during the same period.
Our economy stabilised, became less volatile with steady growth in manufacturing and, from the second half of the 1990s, in agriculture. It also became more diversified with the share of agriculture in the economy falling by nearly half since 1991. In the same period our manufacturing sector grew three times in size, remarkably well-balanced between the large- and small-scale sectors. Manufacturing export earned dollars grew by nearly four times. Consistent with this manufacturing growth our cities grew at a robust pace, faster than neighbouring India. Labour markets tightened with a significant increase in real wages in manufacturing. Our agriculture sector grew 42 per cent between 1991 and 2005, similar to the growth in India or Pakistan but achieved with far less land, and we nearly attained self-sufficiency in food.
In human development, ‘Bangladesh leads the way,’ wrote the well-known economist Jean Dreze around four years ago in a column in the Hindu newspaper. Dreze, now a politically prominent Indian citizen, created quite a stir with his column. He was followed in praising Bangladesh’s achievements by other columnists in India, such as Jairam Ramesh, currently a state minister in the union government. They are not exaggerating, if we look at the latest World Development Indicators (2008) we find the following: In health, life expectancy of the average Bangladeshis have increased from 55 years in 1993 to 64 years matching life expectancy in India and Pakistan where the increase in life expectancy was much more gradual. Infant mortality in Bangladesh declined from 100 to 52 and even more dramatically for children under-5 mortality. In both cases, these outcomes are better than India’s, and markedly better than Pakistan’s. In education: net primary enrolment increased from 71 per cent to 93 per cent between 1990 and 2005 while net secondary enrolment increased from 19 per cent to 43 per cent. Yes, there are serious issues concerning the quality of education but so are there serious issues with quality in most low-income countries including our neighbours.
Poverty declined quite dramatically. Whereas 58 per cent of the population lived in poverty in 1992, the share came down to 49 per cent in 2000 and 40 per cent in 2005. By any standards this is an exceptional rate of poverty reduction. Comparatively, the decline in poverty in India has been from 36 per cent in 1993 to 28 per cent in 2005. No, it will not be correct to say our people are still much poorer than Indians. Bangladesh’s national poverty line, or the consumption level it sets for defining poverty, is higher than in India or in Pakistan. If we take our ‘lower poverty line’, which defines poverty closer to the definitions used in India or Pakistan, our poverty rate declined from 41 per cent in 1992 to 25 per cent in 2005. This is remarkable given that our per capita income is significantly lower than India’s or Pakistan’s and implies that growth in Bangladesh has been considerably more pro-poor than in our two big neighbouring countries.
Because of, not in spite of
Did Bangladesh’s development success happen because of the policies by the elected governments of this period or in spite of them? Was it all ‘routine development’ as I once heard said in a television talk-show? These questions have been in vogue in some elite and intellectual circles. Common sense would argue that countries cannot grow and develop for than a decade without the government playing some positive role. Ordinary people with common sense would not ask these questions seriously, which is why they take elections seriously: they know that governments’ performance matter.
Certainly those who have witnessed the suffering of people caused by inept economic management leading to extremely high inflation rates, including in countries in our region, or have seen governments’ predatory practices that drive the private sector away from a country reversing decades of growth know there are many ways the government can do serious harm. That did not happen under our democratic governments.
There are several ways, in fact, that Bangladesh’s democratically elected governments played an important role in promoting development. One, they kept the economy stable during most of this period, while gradually liberalising and opening the economy to world competition, from which the economy gained enormously. Low deficits, low inflation rates and, for the most part, a gradual depreciation of the currency allowed investor confidence to grow, while maintaining economic competitiveness. One sign of our government’s success here has been the absence of IMF programmes, which are often indicators of a distressed economy, for most of this period. Two, governments invested effectively in building rural infrastructure and communications. Those, who have visited rural areas in north India or say many parts of Pakistan, know that our rural infrastructure compares well. One important example is our high road density: 1.7km of roads for every square kilometre compared to 1 for India and 0.3 for Pakistan. Roads and communications facilitate trade and commerce, the lifeblood of market economies.
Three, the fact is, overall, governments have been private sector friendly, or at least no less so than the fast-growing countries of our region. The reality is that our modern corporate sector has flourished under the democratic rule of the last 17 years. Corporations that were unknown in the beginning of this period have become household names, courtesy of a barrage of advertisement. While it is true, that surveys of private firms show that on the one hand proportionately many more Bangladeshi firms confront corruption, than in other countries. Regulations on obtaining licenses, starting business and employing land and labour for manufacturing have been less onerous than in some other countries in the regions. As a result, commensurate with our growth in manufacturing and construction overall private investment rates have nearly doubled since 1991. In recent years, whenever I have landed in Dhaka, I have been struck by the expanding bright, large factory roof tops in Savar.
Finally, Bangladesh’s democratic governments have been arguably among the most progressive in the world in investing in social development and, equally important, among the most innovative in devising new ways to bring services to the people. They have forged partnerships with non-governmental organisations in improving service delivery. BRAC, Grameen Bank, and others have evolved into world-class giants in public service delivery and micro-finance. But improvements in service delivery have not just been the work of NGOs. There have been other examples of direct government innovation: the government’s programme to provide cash transfers to families in return for their daughters attending secondary schools, has created an international example for others to follow. All this has helped Bangladesh to achieve a more pro-poor growth than many other countries.
Obviously, the democratic governments of Bangladesh have not been exemplary governments. Had they been exemplary governments we would not have faced the constitutional crisis of 2007. There have been glaring errors and failures. Power and energy sectors and the management of the Chittagong port have suffered imposing a heavy burden on the economy. Widespread corruption flourished in a climate of impunity alongside deterioration in law and order and a dangerous unwillingness to confront growing terrorism. Violent political confrontations, especially towards the end of tenures, have cost the economy dearly and made the people suffer. These problems are well-known and have been discussed at length over the past two years.
However, it is also true that most of these problems are not unique to Bangladesh. Further, the solutions to these problems do not lie in any notion of enlightened authoritarian rule, especially in Bangladesh. Winston Churchill once famously said, ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all its alternatives.’ All our history suggests that his saying applies with special force for Bangladesh.
People know, they always have
This brings us to the second point: that our history and culture argue that Bangladesh cannot be effectively governed without democracy and constitutional rule. Consider again some facts. We are a people who are used to enthusiastically participating in elections and then giving decisive verdicts. In 1937 the population of the then united Bengal, but mainly the people of East Bengal, showed their independence when they voted the Krishak Praja party to power challenging both the Congress and the Muslim League monopoly over votes. The 1946 plebiscite, which came late in the Pakistan movement, again produced a decisive result when the people chose to uphold the rights of a minority and a peasantry that feared cultural oppression by a majority and the landholders.
Then came the struggle for Bengali nationalism from 1952 to 1971, when the Bangladeshis struggled against bullets and bayonets to establish their right to speak their mother tongue, to establish their democratic rights and against the notion they were second-class citizens of Pakistan. [The reference to bayonets is not rhetoric: this writer joined his class six school friends to march barefoot several miles to Rajshahi University to pay homage to Dr Zoha’s martyrdom from bayonet wounds]. They roared their defiance in the 1954 election by routing the complacent Muslim League, which had become completely out-of-step with the aspirations of the Bengali people. In the only contested, even if indirectly contested, elections against the military dictator in 1965, the Bangladeshi people became the fulcrum of opposition. In 1969 the people’s movement completely overturned a military junta’s celebrations of a decade of development and liberated Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from his prison cell.
When their final movement to establish their democracy within the framework of Pakistan was sought to be crushed by jets, tanks and artillery, the people united to wage their war of liberation to create Bangladesh. Importantly, the war did not start because the people had decided in advance they wanted Bangladesh. The war started because people would not compromise their democratic rights that the military government of Pakistan was determined to deny. The outcome was the birth of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, a country conceived from the struggle for democratic rights.
The deep historical roots of our resistance to authoritarian rule are well brought out by the following excerpts from the introduction of Hassan Zaheer’s book, ‘The Separation of East Pakistan’ (OUP). Zaheer, who started his career as a civil servant in Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, and ended it as the cabinet secretary of the government of Pakistan in the early 1990s, writes admiringly of his experience as a sub-divisional officer and deputy commissioner in then East Pakistan in the second half of the 1950s:
‘I had gone to East Pakistan at a time when the Awami League had just come to power in the province. Its workers were young and aggressive, and there were occasional differences of opinion on administrative and matters with them or the party members of the national and provincial assemblies, which is quite natural under the parliamentary system. In most such cases I was supported by the provincial Government against them. But in general it was a harmonious and productive relationship between the ruling party and the administration.’
He goes on:
‘The only way one made a reputation in the district was by doing one’s job well, identifying oneself with the local community, and serving the people: which region one came from did not matter. The Bengalis had a very enlightened, but demanding view of what public service was. They would not spare deviations from judicious conduct by the officers, or suffer their arrogance and allow themselves to be pushed around. There would be a flood of petitions against the errant officer to the authorities, and the campaign would be pursued until the government was forced to take notice.’
With such a history, should any Bangladeshi really think that this country of 140 million conscious, independent individuals will be docile participants of political systems designed and run by an urban elite? Can any Bangladeshi really think that this densely-populated country of fiercely independent individuals living in a small flood-prone delta will progress without the active, conscious participation of its people?
Lessons to learn
It would seem that most Bangladeshis do not think so, judging by the enthusiasm that we are seeing with the current elections. However, it is also true this time we have been lucky. Key members of the interim government of the past two years and the powers that backed them have held to their timetable for restoring democracy. Perhaps they also share this intrinsic understanding of what has been achieved under democracy and the deep roots of democracy in our country. Next time, we may not be so lucky. Next time, there may be others who may misread either the progress that we are making or the democratic aspirations in our people. They can make a serious miscalculation – miscalculations which lie at the root of many historical tragedies – and plunge the country into years of instability and resistance to any attempt at unconstitutional rule, all mounting insurmountable obstacles to our progress. Unfortunately, history suggests it is all but inevitable that there will be enough hubris in some persons that they will consider making these miscalculations. Whether they will actually do so depends on whether our political leaders have learned their lessons of the past two years.
It is now the historical responsibility of our political leaders, especially our two former prime ministers, to make sure there is no next time. They will need to make sure that no opportunity is provided for miscalculations. They will need to guide the nation back to a stable democratic rule and the path of sustained progress. Alongside recognising their failures, our leaders will also need to appreciate that their governments have a record of considerable achievements, which needs to be preserved in history and for which they still command the clear support of the people. But whether they can do justice to this support will depend on how they conduct themselves.
Most critically, it will depend on whether they can learn to cooperate with each other – and not only compete – to build and sustain democratic institutions. It needs to be recognised that one reason behind Bangladesh’s progress under democracy has been the sense of competition among the two parties. Due to this competition, politicians have, perhaps sometimes only in passing, strived to develop the country and their constituencies. They have done so knowing that they will have to answer to the people in elections and that their seats will be keenly contested. At other times, however, this competition has degenerated into violent confrontation and a ‘winner-takes-all’ mentality at a great cost to the country, to politics and to politicians. In their own interest, in the interest of preserving their names in history, and in the interest of the future of the country, our leaders will now need to balance their competitive spirit with a conscious effort to cooperate with each other to defend constitutional rule and our future.
The road to recovery of constitutional rule has been possible this far because – more through accident than design – our leaders ended up waging a coordinated struggle against attempts to engineer politics or manage democracy. The road to our future will lie in the holding of successful elections in December 29, and then upholding the results through sustaining democratic institutions. Free and fair elections that are keenly contested are central to democracy being effective, but they are not the only element. For democracy to work more effectively our leaders must learn to make the rules and institutions of democracy work through, not just competing, but also cooperating with one another. For that it will be also be necessary to rebuild a culture of civility and magnanimity in politics.
Dr Ahmad Ahsan is a Bangladeshi economist currently working in an international organisation. Before he left Bangladesh he taught economics at Dhaka University. He can be reached at aahsan42@gmail.com
Education policy in manifestos
With poverty and prices taking over the stage in the run up to the national elections, pledged education policy in the party manifestos has not received as much attention as it deserves,
writes Moshahida Sultana Ritu
‘You can cut the flowers, but you can’t stop the spring from coming.’
Pablo Neruda.
In the wake of 2008 elections, probably the most stressed upon and discussed issues are prices, power generation, poverty reduction, economic stability and religious freedom. In the altered political landscape of 2008, education policy did not get as much attention as other policies. One of the reasons is that people sense the advent of spring when blooming flowers capture their attention. Unsurprisingly, issues like price hike and power shortage that have direct affect on our everyday lives get the most attention. Education does not. Education is like spring: silent and powerful. It creates an environment to accommodate the long-awaited social movement, the movement we need to sustain our economic development in the long run.
To shed light on the education policy in manifestos we need to go back to 1983 and 1990. In the backdrop of 1990’s popular mass uprising, there was an important movement —1983’s student movement against Majid Khan’s notorious education policy. At that time the student movement against strengthening religious education gained support from general students. This is one of the historical movements that drew support of almost all political parties.
During the autocratic military regime growth rate of madrassahs was the highest. After the fall of the Ershad regime, the nation grew certain expectations as regards revisiting education policy. The BNP government did not even go close to formulating a constructive education policy. In fact, over the period 1983-1999, number of dakhil madrassahs registered an annual growth rate of 7.04 per cent compared to 2 per cent, and 3.95 per cent in case of junior secondary and secondary schools respectively. Over the same period, annual growth rate of enrolment in dakhil madrssah had been 14.1 per cent, in junior secondary schools 5.25 per cent, and in secondary schools 7.34 per cent.
In 1996, Awami League formed a committee on education policy led by Professor Shamsul Huq. That committee also failed to create the ground for promoting a scientific education system, and education for all. In fact, Awami League, which is known for its so called secular ideas, allocated an extra Tk 100 crore budget for madrassah education. In 2003, the BNP-led alliance formed a 54-member education commission led by Professor Maniruzzaman Miah. On March 31, 2004 the commission undemocratically decided that educational reform was unnecessary. Moreover, the BNP government increased the budget for madrassah education during its tenure.
This year almost all the major political parties focused on increasing literacy. AL aims to attain full literacy by 2017, and BNP aims to eradicate illiteracy within 5 years. Jamaat-e-Islami did not set any such goal, however it put more emphasis on adult literacy and mass literacy campaign at mosques. While AL and BNP both are moving towards strengthening madrassah education, Jamaat is moving towards an unconventional direction — adding the dimension of literacy movement to mosque-based education.
Jatiya Party promises to establish technical colleges and cadet schools in every district, at least one women’s cadet school in every division, and vocational schools in all upazilas. In order to improve the quality of education JP wants to increase the salary of non-government school teachers and AL wants to establish a permanent pay commission and a separate service commission for teachers. There are some populist elements in AL and Jatiya Party’s manifestos. For example, AL proposes to provide free education up to the degree level after five years and Jatiya Party proposes to provide free education up to the higher secondary level.
In terms of strengthening science and technology in education, BNP has gone a step ahead to propose building education park for science, high tech city for employment, and ensuring computer education for all. Jamaat also emphasised on facilitating modern technical education and research. However, Jamaat did not provide any specific direction about implementation of their policies.
Despite higher number of women voters this year, women’s education was not highlighted in manifestos of major parties except Jamaat’s. However, Jamaat’s women education focus is on strengthening madrassah education for women. Interestingly, Jamaat wants to ensure equal right for men considering women get more privilege in primary and secondary education than men do. Thus Jamaat would like to gradually free up the cost of men’s education.
The major left political parties including the Communist Party of Bangladesh, Jatiya Shamajtantrik Dal, Socialist Party of Bangladesh, and the Workers’ Party of Bangladesh broadly emphasised equal education opportunity for all, uniform education, science education, increasing pay scale for teachers at all levels, democratic practice in educational institutions, and creating atmosphere for nurturing progressive thoughts. The CPB has gone one step further in setting specific goals. CPB promises to allocate 8 per cent of annual budget for education. CPB aims to ensure teacher student ratio 1:40 in the primary education and 1:25 in the secondary education.
In almost all manifestos depoliticisation of educational institutions has been mentioned. However, there is no clear indication of how the process of depoliticisation will be realised. This again brings us back to the question ‘will depoliticisation be a reality or prevail as politics of expectation?’ The quest for this difficult answer guides citizens in a direction they want to go.
It is worthwhile to point out that no mainstream political parties except the left have so far spelled out the intention of establishing a common system for a sustainable uniform quality primary education for all. Instead, all major political parties in some ways took a populist approach, and avoided creating a unified approach to education. Political parties except the leftists did not even take a stance against the disparity in the education system. While food price and power shortage took the top positions in the priority list, education policy failed to go beyond the apparent and identify the genuine intention of the parties concerned.
Moshahida Sultana Ritu is faculty member of accounting and information systems at Dhaka University.
|
Next on Readerspeak
| |
a. Khaleda apologises for mistakes, ‘if any’ (http://www.bdnews24.com/ details.php?cid=30&id=72229&hb=0)
b. Hasina terms Dec 29 polls moment of truth (New Age, December 27)
c. Poll expenses surge by 41pc (New Age, December 27)
|
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
