By Shameran Abed

FOR too long in our nation’s short history, democracy has not been in vogue with our politics. When we were not ruled, directly or indirectly, by generals who tried to systematically discredit the political process and destroy democratic institutions, we elected political parties which practised democracy only in its exceptions. And yet, the blame for our democracy deficit cannot be placed entirely on our self-serving politicians or on the power-hungry generals. The failure to create and sustain democratic institutions is a collective failure of society – of politicians who continue to put self over party and party over country and generals whose appetite for authoritarianism is bettered only by their lust for power, of civil society which became too easily partisanised and of the media, which is as financially corrupt as it is morally bankrupt. And, of course, it is a failure of the people, who have, time and again, embraced military dictators just as enthusiastically as they have embraced corrupt politicians, and who have accepted repeated affronts to the rule of law just as easily as they have the curbs on civil liberties.
   If there is a lot of blame to go around for our democracy deficit, it also explains why democracy has been so elusive here. The failure of governments – civil, military and in the present instance a bizarre concoction of both – to deliver good governance is as much a reason for the failure of democracy as it is a result of the lack of functioning democratic institutions. Had we built democratic institutions to last, honoured the constitution we gave to ourselves and shown commitment to the rule of law, the situation, with regard to both democracy and governance, would have been entirely different. What we have done rather is weakened democratic institutions, made a mockery of both the spirit and letter of our constitution and set aside due process and the rule of law to advance the interests of the few at the expense of the many. If all that is to be changed, a collective realisation needs to occur first – there is no quick-fix to our problems and no quick route to democracy; the building of enduring democratic institutions is as much a long-term process as it is a complex one.
   First, parliament, being the foremost democratic institution, must not only legislate for the people but also hold the executive branch of the state to account. However, neither will occur for as long as we continue to perpetuate a political system in which information, as well as decision, flow one way: top-down. The major political parties which contend for power are, by and large, personality cults which do not practice democracy internally or externally. All critical decisions are taken by central committees which are far removed from the disempowered workers and activists at the grassroots. Nominations for parliamentary seats are handed out centrally, if not sold for money, with little or no input from their district and constituency-level organisations, often resulting in dubious candidates being imposed on the constituencies at the expense of far more dedicated and deserving candidates coming up from the grassroots.
   Moreover, once in parliament, these representatives of the people can serve neither their constituents nor their conscience, not even if they wish to do so. On the one hand, they are restricted from voting against their party by article 70 of our constitution, thus not only making the opposition largely symbolic but virtually disenfranchising even the members of the party in government. On the other, unquestioning loyalty by members of parliament to their respective party leaderships is the fundamental precondition to gaining subsequent nominations and to move up the political and party hierarchies. It is a convenient way of ensuring that the political as well as governmental decisions of the party leadership on the front-benches are never scrutinised, much less questioned, by back-bench members of the same party. As a result, our legislature, when we are afforded the luxury of having one, fulfils neither its legislative function nor its role as a necessary check on the powers of the executive branch.
   If we want our legislature to legislate in order to advance the interests of the people and to actually and effectively make government accountable, we must not only amend article 70 to reverse its effect but also dismantle our top-down political decision-making system. The latter is far more difficult to achieve and will require our political parties to become internally democratic in order to allow for power to devolve down to the grassroots. One way to begin this process is through the imposition of certain conditions on political parties as prerequisites for registration with the Election Commission. However, necessary internal reforms for the democratisation of political parties will have to be pushed through by the parties themselves, not be imposed from the outside. The current military-controlled interim government’s attempts to impose reforms on the political parties from the outside, which have, as expected, met with disastrous results, is a perfect example of how not to go about trying to bring democracy to the parties and, ultimately, to the country.
   Second, local government institutions must be strengthened across all levels and be given greater authority as well as responsibility. Strong and accountable local governments are necessary not only to improve service delivery but also for democracy to take firmer roots. However, strengthening local governments will not be possible unless political parties are allowed to directly field candidates in local government elections, as is the case in every functioning democracy in the world. Political parties must be held accountable for their actions at the lowest levels where the government truly meets the people. The present system which affords them the opportunity to indirectly field candidates for local government posts without having to be accountable for their actions puts our parties in a privileged position, a privilege they neither merit nor deserve. Also, making the political parties accountable for their actions at the lowest levels will contribute toward reversing the top-down nature of our political process.
   Third, the judiciary will have to play its part in dispensing justice, upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the executive branch does not overstep its legal and constitutional bounds. Unfortunately, however, we have thus far seen little evidence of the judiciary taking its new-found independence seriously. As a matter of fact, the judiciary has lost further credibility since its separation from the executive by seemingly following the directives of the present regime, especially with regard to the trial of high-profile politicians who are facing trial on charges of corruption. For a democratic society to function, the judiciary has an extremely important role to play as the independent arbiter of legal and constitutional issues and as a reviewer of government actions and decisions. It also has a crucial role to play in ensuring that the fundamental rights of the people are never violated, least of all by the state itself. It is an absolute imperative, therefore, that the judiciary takes its role seriously and contributes to the democratic growth of the state and society by acting with integrity and independence.
   Fourth, civil society and the media must play their part in advancing democracy not only by ensuring governmental accountability but also by effectively scrutinising and influencing governmental and political decisions and actions. For that to happen, the definition of civil society cannot be restricted to include only a handful of high-profile journalists, some NGO activists and some leftist rabble-rousers. Civil society in the Bangladeshi context will have to be greatly broadened to include, for example, bankers and entrepreneurs, doctors and engineers, lawyers and labourers, writers and academics, musicians and mill-workers as well as farmers and fishermen. The problem, however, is that in almost every civil society representative group that one can think of – be they the associations of university professors or associations of doctors, associations of lawyers or associations of engineers, associations of garments manufacturers or associations of real estate developers – there is so much internal divisiveness, typically along partisan lines, that none of them are able to effectively lobby for their interests or act as pressure groups to influence government policy.
   As a matter of fact, the increasing complicity of civil society in partisan politics has been one of the most unfortunate occurrences in independent Bangladesh. Had civil society remained independent and neutral and not pandered so shamelessly to partisan interests, it is doubtful that our country would have found itself in such a perilous political state as it does today with democracy and fundamental rights suspended and the political process under siege by a military-controlled regime.
   The news media, both and electronic, is equally to blame. Media organisations which are not the mouthpieces of one or the other political party advance either the corporate interests of their owners, who are by and large corrupt, or the increasingly irrelevant views of this country’s leftist pseudo-intellectuals, who are good at fence shaking but are unable to come up with a single practical solution to any of this country’s many problems. The mainstream media, despite professing to do so, does not in reality advance the views and concerns of the majority of the people. The partisan nature of media organisations prior to the January 2008 intervention by the military and the media’s enthusiastic embrace of this military-controlled regime when it first assumed power demonstrate clearly the opportunistic, two-faced nature of our mainstream media. Also, too many media organisations are used by their owners and managers as tools for political action in the name of serving the people, which is disingenuous to say the least. Add to that the overall lack of ethical standards in the media and it makes for a rather toxic mix.
   It is debatable whether civil society and the media will take their role more seriously in future. Chances are, when the country is put back on a democratic footing, either through parliamentary elections or following a mass uprising of sorts, civil society and the media will go back to pandering to the political parties and to the politicians. However, given the stakes, given that the ultimate progress and prosperity of our nation depends upon a healthy, democratic political system, perhaps civil society and the media will engage in some self-introspection. If they do, they may realise that the dubious roles that they have played as surrogates of corrupt and undemocratic political parties, as well as of authoritarian regimes, is in large part responsible for our present state and that for democracy to finally take shape, civil society and the media will have to play a far more constructive role by critically engaging with politicians and policy-makers.
   Fifth, the country’s armed forces have a critical role to play in advancing democracy by never again assuming state power in any form and under any circumstances. If our repeated affairs with military rulers have taught us anything, it is that there is no military solution to our democratic problems, the political process does not and will not benefit from military intervention and that generals make lousy democrats. For whatever problems we face with regard to our political system, we will have to find political solutions. Any other option, including the military option, is not only unsustainable but is ultimately counterproductive and sets our country back – politically, economically, and socially – rather than taking us forward. The sooner our present rulers understand that and return the country to a government elected by the people, the sooner will we be able to begin the process of democratic reconstruction.
   And last, the people of this country must also contribute toward the democratic growth of the nation. It is not enough that we ask more of our leaders, although it is essential that we do. It is not enough that we exercise our right to elect as well as bring down governments, although we must ensure for ourselves that right and use it wisely. Instead of waiting for democracy to be delivered to us, we must strive for it as a nation through our actions, individual and collective. That will require a much greater commitment to democratic ideals and greater patience in the face of political challenges. Until that commitment and patience is shown, a new democratic political order in this country will remain as elusive as ever.