The citizens' group and the role of civil society
Such an ongoing debate should be kept alive. It would however serve a more constructive purpose if the issues could be discussed in less polemical and personalized terms so that the initiative itself could be placed in some perspective and particular proposals evaluated on their merit. This would naturally require a clearer understanding of the current nature and prospective role of civil society in Bangladesh.
The citizen's initiative is hardly new. Various groups of citizens have been coming together to focus public attention on the major problem of the day. In recent years the most effective of these was the Citizen's Group assembled in the late 1980s involving Professor Mosharaff Hossain and others which made a trenchant indictment of the Ershad regime and issued a call for united action by the democratic political parties and citizens to challenge the misrule of the regime. During the Shahabuddin Caretaker Government I assembled 255 eminent citizens in 29 Task Forces to identify the problems inherited from the malgoverance of the Ershad years and to present a policy agenda to the newly elected government and parliament on how to cope with this legacy of problems. In 2001 CPD assembled about 160 citizens in 16 Task Forces to present before the political parties contesting the 2001 election to the Jatyo Sangshad, a set of Policy Briefs which addressed the major problems of the day and suggested some policy responses for the newly elected government. In 2003 the same Group of Citizens were reassembled by CPD to prepare a report card on progress made by the incumbent government in responding to the challenges presented to them by the Citizens Group in 2001. Many other citizens groups have surfaced in the post-democratic era addressing specific issues ranging from the environment (BAPA) to ensuring free and fair elections (FEMA, Brotee, Sujon).
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. It is not clear how far the regime elected to office in 1991 and again in 2001 made effective use of the dedicated efforts of their fellow citizens in volunteering their time and labour to prepare Task Force reports or in cleaning up the environment. The operative issue, however, remains that over a twelve year period a distinguished body of citizens from Bangladesh were willing to pledge their creative skills in the service of the country. Their labours not only constitute a unique body of source material for the infinite possibilities which lie before Bangladesh but the Task Force reports and Policy Briefs, for example, also provide a historical memory of the extraordinary professional capabilities which lie underutilized within Bangladesh. Any democratic government with the creative imagination to reach out to their own people rather than run to their development partners for policy guidance has a veritable treasure trove of talent at their disposal. It is a tragedy for Bangladesh that in most cases these services tend to remain largely involved in the initiatives of civil society rather than in the service of democratically elected regimes.
The latest attempt to assemble a citizen's group to provide a Vision for Bangladesh has become particularly topical. A decade and a half of democracy has generated an almost universal concern across the country that some of the most deeply felt concerns of our citizen's have remained without satisfactory address. General problems such as the persistence of mass poverty, unbridled corruption, the tyranny of patronized criminals, the alienation of the administration from the people, the comodification of law enforcement and the recent emergence of terrorism in the name of religion, are compounded by specific failures such as in the power sector. Ordinary citizens feel that their elected representatives do not prioritise their concerns.
The confrontational nature of our political system has rendered three successive parliaments dysfunctional while those equipped with money and muscle are increasingly transforming democratic politics into an instrument of private gain. As a result, virtually all voters aspire to be represented by honest, committed, candidates who would seek votes on the basis of their public record rather than the size of their bank balance or the strength of their firepower. All citizens would hope to participate in an election where they would be free to cast their vote free of coercion and can be sure that these votes would be correctly tallied so that the candidate who genuinely enjoys the confidence of the electorate represents them in parliament. When parliament is assembled voters would like to see this function throughout its five year life, free of walkouts and boycotts, where the concerns of the people are freely voiced by their elected representatives and seriously addressed by the party in office. The demand for 'clean' candidates is, thus, not a personal demand of Professor Yunus or the Citizen's Group but is a long standing demand of all Bangladeshis and grows stronger with every election where many voters feel inadequately represented.
In the final analysis political parties must choose their candidates and the electorate must exercise the final decision of who will represent them. Civil society, in any shape or form, cannot expect to usurp such choices within a functioning democracy. In Bangladesh, in particular, the overwhelming strength of our two party system, narrows the choice of candidates and makes it difficult, for even independent candidates, to challenge the hegemony of the dominant parties. The main option for citizens, thus, remains to influence the selection of candidates by the parties who otherwise remain locked into a fight for survival. Thus, if one party chooses a candidate with a big bank balance and/or a person with heavy mastaan power, the other party feels compelled to match this or risk losing the seat by placing a 'clean' candidate. It is here that citizen's groups, whether organized across the country or in particular constituencies, can come together and demand that both parties choose good candidates.
However, if one party responds to this call and another does not voters must demonstrate their willingness to punish the party backing an unsavory candidate by voting for the better candidate. However this choice may only be exercised if voters are left free to cast their vote without fear of violence. Thus the issue of choosing 'clean' candidates is initially linked to the integrity of the election process. An election process where the Election Commission is compromised by partisan behavior, where election officials such as primary school teachers as well as law enforcement officials at the constituency level have been pre-selected for their partisan identity, is likely to render the issue of the quality of the candidate somewhat irrelevant.
Can civil society exercise enough influence on our major parties to choose the right candidates? Much depends on the seriousness, courage and stamina of civil society itself. In practice much of what passes for civil society in the way of NGOs or professional bodies have steered clear of any involvement in the political process. This choice is largely dictated by the peculiar laws governing NGOs which effectively discourage not just political engagement but even advocacy initiatives. It is not surprising that most NGOs have settled for becoming aid contractors who offer various social services such as provision of micro-credit, health care and education through drawing upon donor funding. Some NGOs which have attempted to influence the political process have paid a heavy price if they found themselves on the wrong side of the political divide.
Those civil society organizations which have largely engaged themselves in advocacy rather then service delivery tread on very dedicate ground. There is no saying when the government of the day may take offense at a particular initiative and threaten to cancel a particular NGO's registration or withhold their access to external funding. This being Bangladesh, no uniform norms guide official intervention into the activities of NGOs or civil society organizations. Much depends on who you know but particularly if you have the 'correct' political identity. Thus NGOs, even advocacy organizations, with heavy dependence on external funding, remain particularly cautious about venturing into issues of political significance such as elections.
The hazards of intervention by the NGO Bureau are hardly the principal hazard faced by civil society intruding into the political arena. In an age where huge investments are made in the pursuit of electoral office intrusion by well meaning civil society advocates is not likely to be appreciated particularly if efforts are being made by such activists to expose the antecedents of all candidates to their electorate. Whilst full public disclosure of key information on a candidate, such as their material worth and legal record, have by law to be made public, the Election Commission has never enforced this provision. Efforts by civil society to correct this omission could, in the particular case of candidates with much to hide and the means to keep their darker deeds veiled from the voters, invite some undemocratic responses.
Thus civic activism is likely, particularly when it promises to become effective, to be a potential health hazard for the activist and will require courage, strong public support and the willingness to persevere under quite trying circumstances. The strength of civic activism lies in effective action where various activist enterprises can aggregate their efforts and then join hands with local citizens to integrate their national level initiatives with local mobilizations. Multiple civic initiatives, speaking with discordant voices and occasionally forked tongues, can confuse and demoralize local activists who are already exposed to risk from dubious candidates resentful of being put under scrutiny.
It is thus essential for all civil society initiatives seeking free and fair elections, where 'clean' candidates can be encouraged to come forward without undue risk, to coalesce their efforts and generate synergy at the national and local level. If such a coherent effort can be mounted and above all sustained there is very possibility that the political parties can think a lot harder before they rush to nominate questionable candidates. Here again, however, civil society should keep in mind that in some areas candidates whose sources of wealth or criminal record may not merit close scrutiny may also be quite popular among voters. In an age of fast deteriorating governance such politicians provide protection, in the Godfather tradition, as well as some public services not always underwritten by the public exchequer. Such candidates may not win civil society endorsement but may remain acceptable to their electorate. Civil society must therefore come to terms with the fact that their judgment on candidates may not always be endorsed by the electorate and must thereby respect the logic of democracy.
Keeping these political realities in mind civil society should seek to build alliances over the next months so that they can generate a strong body of public opinion which can in many, if not all, cases influence the selection process in the political parties through educating the voters as to their options. In such an exercise all such interventions across civil society need to brought on a common platform to provide momentum to the movement to ensure a credible election. Attempts to question the credentials of everyone who seeks to contribute to this effort tend to be counterproductive to the primary mission of building a level of public support needed to generate effective pressure on the political leadership.
Democracy in Bangladesh has lived a precarious life. Whilst this, in large measure, owes to the peculiar pathologies of our two party system civil society must also share the blame. Democracy can only be sustained when ordinary citizens deem it their responsibility to demand accountability both from the state as well as their elected representatives. The depth and strength of a proactive civil society is a measure of the health of the democratic process which, in turn, is instrumental in determining the quality of governance. Good governance requires pro-active citizens who can demand greater transparency and accountability from the elected government.
If democracy is to be sustained the people of Bangladesh need to be persuaded that electoral politics is not just an exercise for private gain but is serviceable instrument which can be used to ensure a better future for themselves and the country. Voters therefore need to be presented with a vision for a better tomorrow which holds out a credible promise that their lives really can be transformed. Such a vision must be generated by the citizens themselves to serve as a measure of their expectations from the democratic process. But if such a vision is to be more than just a fantasy it must be owned by the political leadership. Their right to represent the people must be gauged by the credibility of their commitment to build such a future of promise for the people of Bangladesh.
The future of democracy in Bangladesh is not the exclusive responsibility of politicians. The final custodians of democracy remain the citizen voters who elect the politicians to public office. To participate in the democratic process does not mean we have to become practicing politicians. Though it would certainly be a positive step for democracy if more committed and professionally competent people did join political parties and were willing to earn the confidence of the electorate. However, all citizens also need to participate in the democratic process as responsible voters and not just as mere voting fodder every five years to elect yet another set of unaccountable representatives. Voters, therefore, also need to play an active role as members of civil society if we are to ensure that the democratic process is to take root.
We must all remember that our primary identity is that of a citizen of Bangladesh which makes all of us card carrying members of civil society. This rediscovery of our identity as responsible citizens may begin with a collective effort to make the forthcoming elections a credible demonstration of democracy. But we must then further commit ourselves to spend the next five years making the government we elect accountable for their every act of commission and omission. If and when civil society is willing to commit itself to such a responsible role during and after the electoral process Bangladesh may look forward to cleaner politics and better governance.