Backward march of a nation

In those days the country had no constitution. There were no fundamental rights, as such. It was run under the Government of India Act 1935. Elections took place under a party government. The concept of caretaker government was unknown, and unheard of. The police, the civil bureaucracy, the para-military forces, the intelligence services and the state media were all controlled by the Chief Minister. Even then he lost. And he accepted the defeat in good grace. Fifty years on, can we imagine an election under a party government where an influential minister, not to speak of a Chief/Prime Minister, would lose? Certainly not.

In those days politicians used to come to politics to serve the country: to give and not to take. Good education, good family background and professional competence, and not money and muscle, were the dominating factors in politics. Politics as a lucrative profession was not in the political dictionary. It was based on principles: it was not a clash of personalities.

Abul Mansur Ahmed wrote in his "Fifty Years of Politics" that in the 1954 elections, when they sensed that their opponents were going to forfeit their deposits, they requested the voters to cast some votes in favour of their opponents so that they were not politically humiliated. What a sharp contrast between the past and the present! A sizeable number of present-day politicians would be happy to see their political opponents not only humiliated, but physically eliminated as well.

Undoubtedly, in the last 50 years the country has marched backwards. The root cause of this backward march of the nation can be found in our sick politics. In 2007, it is simply unimaginable to hold an acceptable parliamentary elections under a party government.

The question is: why this negative march? This is primarily because the institutions have been damaged to the extent of being destroyed, firstly by successive martial law regimes and secondly by the power hungry politicians who wanted to politicize the institutions and administration so that they could cling to power. Power they had to relinquish sooner rather than later, but in the process irreparable damage has been done to the Republic.

A stark contrast with India, our next-door neighbour. India -- as it stands today -- was never a unified country before the arrival of the British in the eighteenth century. With all its diversity -- in language, in religion, in ethnicity -- it survived and prospered to become one of the 21st century's biggest industrial powers. This is primarily because its founding fathers had a vision. Jawharlal Nehru -- the lifetime prime minister from 1947 to 1964 -- was a "convinced democrat." He wrote an anonymous article warning Indians of the dangers of giving dictatorial powers to him (Jawharlal Nehru). "He must be checked. We want no Caesers" [See Time, November 13, "60 years of Asian Heroes"].

In India, the institutions have survived, if not strengthened, since the British time. This is the basic difference between Bangladesh and India, both of which obtained independence from the British at the same time. Today our institutions -- the Parliament, the police, the Judiciary, the Election Commission, the civil bureaucracy -- face the greatest challenge in our history. Day in and day out they are being politicised by the democratically elected governments. Every day they are losing public confidence. This is the worst irony of our fate.

It is unimaginable that the police will investigate into the wrong-doings of a sitting minister, whereas this is the routine work of police in a democracy. In the recent past, following allegations that peerages were granted in exchange of donations to the Labour Party fund, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was questioned by the British police -- Scotland Yard. This has happened in other democracies as well.

Normally, in a Parliamentary democracy, the head of the state is the symbol of unity of the nation. The United Kingdom has a unique situation: the Queen is the Head of the State, and although the government is formed by a political party it is known as Her Majesty's Government. The Queen has no political colour. And it is inconceivable that she would prefer one party over another.

In successful democracies, to maintain national unity, a non-partisan neutral person is chosen as president. Credit goes to the Awami League for choosing Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed as the president after their victory in the 1996 Parliamentary elections. But his exit from the presidency was painful. Reportedly, in the aftermath of the elections in 2001, he could not comply with the unlawful demands of the Awami League and as a result he had to leave Bangabhaban in tears.

The resignation of Professor Badrudduza Chowdhury (though a party man ) from the presidency was also an unhappy one. The background and manner of exit of these two presidents will act as a serious deterrent in future for any non-partisan person with a degree of independence and dignity to accept the post of president.

The country is hopelessly divided along political lines. It is divided between "us" and "them." And such a division is found almost in all segments of the society, in all sectors and in all institutions off the country. Some quarters are nursing this division consciously and philosophising it publicly. This is simply suicidal for a nation.

Take an example. On the following day of the last US presidential elections, both the candidates -- George W Bush and John Kerry -- in their speeches said one thing in common: during the long campaign we have divided the nation enough, now let us unite them. Whereas both the candidates had little difference in foreign policy, it was the style of leadership and the economy where there were differences.

Take South Africa as another example of national unity. When the ugly apartheid regime was finally dismantled after enormous sacrifices, and blood and fire, the victor and the vanquished joined together to build the nation. Many an apartheid prime minister died in dignity in black Africa. Look at seventh century Arabia: the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), by uniting the desert nomads and the warring tribes of Medina, the Aws and Khajraj, was able to successfully challenge the mighty empires of his time -- the Byzantines and the Persians.

The question is how to unite this divided nation? How do you make the sick politics sound? This is not an easy task. But this is not an impossible task, either.

A political party is the biggest engine for change in a society. And unless the politics is put right, the nation cannot get back on track. Perhaps a single honest, competent and dedicated politician can change the fate of the nation. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances. However, such a politician can only grow from within the political process.

But the political structure, and nature and culture of the political parties in Bangladesh are such that it is highly unlikely that such a politician will emerge from within the political process. This is a Catch 22 situation. In any event, to begin with, the nation needs a politician (or ideally a statesman) who has a vision, who can rise above petty party politics and unite the nation and lead it towards the path of peace and prosperity.

The writer is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.