Commonwealth and Democracy: Bangladesh perspective

Lord Acton had said that a democratic government in a plural society has two conditions: There is the supremacy of the civil authority over the military, and that the government is conducted with the consent of the governed.

I need not dwell on the urgency, the necessity and the essentiality of those two conditions. We all know what happens when the opposite occurs. We move away from democratic norms and we gradually lose the qualities of a pluralistic society. The worst sufferers then are the poor and the needy, whose interests are not often reflected in the priorities of governance.

We shall all endeavour that democracy prevails at all tiers of administration and governance to provide opportunities to all individuals -- irrespective of caste, creed, religion, or social standing -- to blossom themselves into their best selves. Democracy would then permeate all levels of society and work for the overall benefit and well being of the people of Bangladesh.

In 1971 the Singapore Declaration of the Heads of Governments of the Commonwealth proclaimed that the people in every society had the inalienable right to organise themselves in a free and democratic manner. In 1989 in Kuala Lumpur the same principles were reiterated. In 1991 in Harare it was unanimously agreed to aid and assist the electoral and constitutional processes and proposed to send observers. For furthering these objectives, in 1995 in New Zealand the Millbrook Action Programme was adopted.

The Commonwealth has succeeded in helping South Africa and other member countries for fostering representative and democratic process. The Commonwealth's attempt to mediate in the constitutional imbroglio of Bangladesh through the good offices of Sir Niniyan failed. The Commonwealth observers came to this country in 1991, 1996 and 2001. Commonwealth Observer Group is organised always at the request of the government of the country concerned. It is sent to observe relevant aspects of the organisation and conduct of the general election in accordance with the laws of the country. It is to consider the various facts impinging on the credibility of the electoral process as a whole and to find out whether the conditions exist for a free expression of will by the electors and if the results of the elections reflect the will of the people.

The group is to act impartially and independently. It has no executive role. Its function is not to supervise but to observe the process as a whole. It may propose to the authorities concerned such action on institutional, procedural and other matters as would assist the holding of election. I was in the group that saw the election in Papua New Guinea in 1997. I was the leader of the group that observed the election in Antigua and Barbuda in 1999. I was also the leader of the South Asian Group that observed the general election in Pakistan in 1997. Fortunately I faced no problem. My colleagues were excellent and the administrations of the countries I visited were very helpful and hospitable. Things were not the same in some other cases.

In every election the question of voter education arises. It is primarily the job of political parties. The question of educational qualification of voters is often debated. Rabindranath Tagore was not enthusiastic of participation of uneducated people. Forty years back in Lahore I saw Mulk Raj Anand the great novelist of 'Two Leaves and a Bud'-fame and Manjur Qader, Foreign Minister, a former Chief Justice and one of the men behind the 1962 Constitution of Pakistan, debating on the advisability of participation of uninitiated people in election. Mr Qader expressed his disapproval by saying that he was sure that his cook would not understand deficit financing. Mr Anand parried and said 'You may not know, your cook may throw a flood of light on the problems of deficit financing from his own experience'. May I refer to the wondering of George Bernard Shaw: "Despotism failed only for want of a capable benevolent despot, what chance has democracy, which requires a whole population of capable voters."

Plato was never enthusiastic about democracy, he grudgingly gave a backhanded compliment when he said "democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."

EM Forster in his Two Cheers for Democracy said "Two Cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no occasion to give three".

You are all aware of the famous aphorism of Sir Winston Churchill: "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

No government is perfect. No electoral process is perfect. The main redeeming feature of a democracy, however, is that its defects are visible and talked about and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected. That is why Amartya Sen is urging us to believe that famine may not occur in a real democratic society.

Alexis de Tocqueville in his classic treatise on Democracy in America said long ago in January 1835 that "though a democracy is more liable to error than a monarch or a body of nobles, the chances of its regaining the right path when once it has acknowledged its mistake are greater also; because it is rarely embarrassed by interests that conflict with those of the majority and resist the authority of reason. But a democracy can obtain truth only as the result of experience; and many nations may perish while they are awaiting the consequences of their errors. The great privilege of the Americans does not consist in being more enlightened than other nations, but in being able to repair the faults they may commit. It must be added that a democracy cannot profit by past experience unless it has arrived at a certain pitch of knowledge and civilisation".

Noam Chomski and many others like him in and outside USA may be wondering whether Alexis de Toequeville's words are still reassuring in the post-Iraq World. Alexis de Toequeville said something more. Did he foreshadow countries like ours? He said "there are nations whose first education has been so vicious and whose character presents so strange a mixture of passions, ignorance, and erroneous notions upon all subjects that they are unable to discern the causes of their own wretchedness, and they fall a sacrifice to ills of which they are ignorant."

By 2000 there were around 100 democracies -- almost twice the number in 1989 and about three times as many there were just after World War II. Still today only slightly more than 50 percent of all sovereign states have a democratically constituted government. A substantial number of today's democracies are not performing well. Democratic practices appear fragile in some of the countries of the former Soviet Union and in Latin America. And they remain elusive in most of Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Western Asia. We were still far away from the imagined happy and contented, shall I say smugly, end of the history situation.

Just with data of a few hundred years we often pontificate on the future of human society. There were times when Catholicism was condemned and considered to be unfit for democracy. These days they may talk about Islam. Since the days of Pharaohs, mind-boggling changes have been taking place. Thanks to the scientific inventions, we can now dream of seemingly unachievable objectives like equality of men. Thanks to the birth control devices we can think of equality of both men and women. Twenty-first century has started badly, there is no magic in the Millenium celebrations. And I have no talent for forecasting.

Our country, though not its name can easily be identified in Ptolemy's map drawn about 150 AD. Since the age of discoveries the importance of this country along with other countries of South Asia and Southeast Asia has steadily grown. After nearly two hundred years we became free from the British rule. For twenty-three years from its inception, no general election was held in Pakistan. The first one was held on 6 December 1970 and the country did not survive and it got asunder.

The emergence of Bangladesh evoked a great support and sympathy among the freedom loving people of the world from Allen Ginsberg to Andre Malraux. Unfortunately that valuable goodwill was soon lost. Andre Malraux the great novelist wanted to launch a tank brigade in support of the Bangladesh freedom fighters. He came to Bangladesh on 20 April 1973 and was conferred an honourary D Litt degree by the Rajshahi University. Malraux was amazed at the impatience obtaining in this country. He found the lean and hungry looking intelligentsia utterly discontented. The makers of public opinion looked more miserable than their miseries. He had a foreboding that the impatient Bangladeshis who had not been sufficiently hardened or steeled by the war of nine months might liquidate their leader.

His foreboding came to be true within less than three years. Bangladesh was then called the land of Sheikh Mujib, the leader in whose name the liberation war was fought and won, despite his non-involvement in the process of the war itself. His absence was a misfortune and called for painful adjustments. Mujub was murdered with shocking ferocity. The country witnessed several military upheavals and hiccups. Within a little more than five years after the assassination of the founder of the country, the two of our heroes, the Bir Uttams, were killed again with shocking frenzy and ferocity. A country which was committed to democracy had suffered two military strokes.

After a series of loss of lives and a few frondes, the military rule came to an end on 6 December 1990. With the Eleventh and Twelfth amendments, Parliamentary Democracy was restored. Our teething problems were not over. The constitution was amended for the thirteenth time for facilitating the formation of the Caretaker Government. For last sixteen years we are ruled by the successors of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman. High hopes were raised. Alas! very few of them were realised.

The members of the United Front were at least partly true to their promises. They passed the law in 1957 for the independence of the Magistracy. Our pussyfooted legislators did not, however, publish a two-line notification mentioning the date of the coming into effect of that law.

Nearly fifty years have elapsed. Some of the SAARC countries have separated the judiciary from the executive. The sky did not fall. Their governments did not topple down by a judicial fiat. It is a pity that none of the elected governments cared for the separation of the judiciary from the executive, the sine qua non for the rule of law. Again, it is a pity that none of elected governments cared to follow the constitutional provisions for setting up local governments, the founding schools for self-government and democracy for aspiring politicians. There should be a meaningful devolution of power at the local level.

We are to remember that if the will of the people is not reflected in the governance, if corruption overtakes legitimate honest practices, if conflict and confrontation replace accommodation and tolerance, even large majority in elections may not protect or save the government. It is unfortunate the elected government aped the military tactics of revising the age limit and increasing the number of constitutional incumbents who are supposed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution for upholding the freedom of the people and independence of the country.

An election is a great uncertainty. It can give lie to all kinds of forecasts. Aristides the Good was a great administrator. Soon people got tired of him. One man waited for casting his oyster shell, the ballot of those days. He was asked 'why do you want to ostracise Aristides?' He said quietly 'I am fed up having Aristides the Good!' Adulation of any leader, however high so ever, is a dangerous pastime. After some time people may not savour the diet.

You may look around and see the walls. They have long tongues and spewing up virtuous assertions and venomous allegations. One Nilakantha Mahadeva, may not be able to swallow all the poisons that may be generated by the election processes. One ruling party came to power on a manifesto of lentil and rice. The people were curious, when another party talked about fish and rice. The people raised their brows. And if you talked about milk and rice, that our mothers cherished for their children, they would have burst in laughter. On their behalf may I say:

"I do not know what the four freedoms are.
I have not heard of either
Four square meals or four sandwiches a day.
I am more than happy if I get rice.
Not thrice,
Just twice a day."

Muhammad Habibur Rahman is former Chief Justice, Bangladesh Supreme Court and Chief Adviser, Caretaker Government 1996.