Democracy cannot function when violence rules

Today we are seeing the proliferation of what Dr. Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, says "illiberal democracy," where nominally elected leaders rule like neo-fascists.

Zakaria wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine a few years ago: "Naturally there is a spectrum of illiberal democracy, ranging from modest offenders like Argentina to near-tyrannies like Kazakhstan and Belarus, with countries like Romania and Bangladesh in between." Such illiberal democracies ultimately fail the test of democracy. Elections are meaningless if they lead to authoritarian regimes which do not allow political opposition and use violence and intimidation as instruments of government. As Dr. Zakaria so correctedly pointed out: "Constitutional liberalism , on the other hand, is not about the procedures of election of government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society."

Seen in this light, recent attacks on Dr. Kamal Hossain, a prominent opposition leader and Dr. Humayun Azad, a prominent scholar are an assault on the very institution of democracy. These attacks threaten democratic institutions and may lead to the collapse of the entire society as we have seen in Haiti. When a so-called elected leader like Aristide started to behave like an autocrat, he actually undermined his own future. He has now left the country in a political vacuum and only outside intervention can stem the total collapse. The tendency of a democratically elected government to believe that it has absolute authority can result in the concentration of power, often by extra-constitutional means and with grim results.

Over the last decade, elected governments claiming to represent the people have steadily encroached on the powers and rights of other elements in the society.

When extra-constitutional violence is used to silence the opposition leaders and free thinkers, it can ultimately lead to collapse of the authority itself. When Robesphere, a leader of the French Revolution, used terror to destroy his critics, he became its ultimate victim. One of the fundamental basis of democratic rule is non-violent transfer of power. Democrats are allowed to use minimal violence only to counter violent attacks. But they must remember that non-violent opposition is fundamental to any democratic governance. It is the constitutional opposition that keeps the government from becoming a tyranny.

Bangladesh must eschew such undemocratic means and bring the culprits to justice. If the elected leaders fail to behave like democrats, the judges should step in and ensure that democratic norms are respected. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not only inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power and ethnic and religious conflicts.