Dilemmas of democracy in Bangladesh

The people found it difficult to accept such alien institutions as they were not deep rooted in their political traditions. After the independence of Bangladesh, its constitution makers adopted a parliamentary form of democracy based on the same model as the 1956 constitution of Pakistan. I would now like to discuss the problems of democracy in Bangladesh. Some of the problems are shared by the other emergent democracies in Asia, while others are peculiar to her. I will make an attempt to make a comparative study of the working of democracy in the West with the nascent democracies in Asia and Africa with particular emphasis on Bangladesh.

In the West, the transition from autocracy to democracy was a slow and gradual process, and was carried on in a far less complicated conditions than those which confront the democracies of Asia and Africa including Bangladesh. As democracy demands people's participation in the affairs of government, it requires a higher standard of living among far more people than do other forms of government. In the under-developed countries of Asia and Africa, including Bangladesh, the priority of the people is to strive for economic emancipation, whilst trying to preserve the democratic values and traditions at the same time. It is a difficult task to maintain a delicate balance between political freedom and socio-economic progress.

In the West, however, people with economic means and political weight, who need not have to fight for survival, can easily participate in the political affairs. Such participation has gone a long way to contribute towards the successful working of democratic institutions. A society divided between a small favoured elite and a large impoverished mass in Bangladesh may not be suitable to develop democratic values and traditions. The economic conditions are mores conducive to oligarchy than to free democratic institutions.

Moreover, the political history of the people of the Indian subcontinent is more associated with oligarchy and despotic rule than democratic institutions. Despite the fact that they were familiar with some form of rudimentary parliamentary democracy since 1919, they found it difficult to adjust themselves to such free democratic institutions, which they considered was insecurely grafted upon their older and more deep-rooted system of authority. Consequently, the experiment of such new political institutions exhibited certain disquieting features, hampering the growth and development of democratic institutions.

The small favoured elite groups, who had been familiar with the concept of Western democratic institution, were responsible for its imposition in Bangladesh. These elites, including some top army officials, bureaucrats and politicians, who happen to exercise the real power in Bangladesh, have miserably failed to deliver the fruits of its independence to the masses. They have been reaping its benefits since independence, creating a society with a wide difference between the haves and have-nots. Such economic disparity between the rich and the poor has led to the creation of an environment not favourable for the growth and development of free democratic institutions.

As perhaps 90 percent of the people of Bangladesh are Muslims, the impact of religion on politics cannot be ignored altogether. Although the religious groups would prefer to hold onto Islamic culture and tradition, they have reluctantly accepted the imposition of Western democratic institutions. It is true that the elites are trying to understand and appreciate the genius and traditions of the masses and the religious groups are also making an effort to meet the challenges of modern science and technology. There is still a long way to go before they can reach an agreement. They must try to reconcile their contrasting views on politics so that a compromise is made for the creation of a society where synthesis can be made between our fundamental belief and the requirements of our modern life. Such society, if created, will certainly facilitate the growth and development of free democratic institutions.

The political party is regarded as one of the fundamental requisites of a democratic form of government, be it presidential or parliamentary. In the West, both the ruling and the opposition parties play their respective parts in order to ensure that the process of democracy can work successfully. The opposition party abides by the decision of the ruling party, while the ruling party also recognise the rights and grievances of the opposition party. Such exchange of views and mutual respect for each other has contributed towards the successful working of democracy there.

In Bangladesh, on the other hand, the role of the political parties is marred by dirty political intrigues, lack of discipline and organisation, and greed for power. The role of the opposition party has not yet been properly appreciated or understood. The tendency of the ruling party is to brand the opposition as anti-state and subversive, while the opposition has not yet learnt the limits of constitutional opposition. There seems to be much confusion and misunderstanding between opposition to the government and opposition to the state. Democracy requires people to participate in the affairs of the government. As it is not possible for the people to take part directly, public opinion should be formed to criticise the government and make their wishes known in respect of the formulation of its policies. Democracy, therefore, provides scope for the people to form their opinion and at the same time an opportunity to the opposition party to generate alternative policies. Such fair play of power between the opposition and the ruling party is the main essence of democratic institutions. The well-organised public opinion depends for its existence on a responsible and free press, and a literate, serious and educated public. Bangladesh, like most of the other nascent democracies in Asia and Africa, lack these requisites.

Periodical elections should be held to determine the kind of government the people want. Such election can be held either on the basis of universal adult or restricted suffrage. The adoption of universal adult suffrage amongst people majority of whom are illiterate or semi-illiterate is beset with formidable difficulties and obstacles. The adoption of universal suffrage in Bangladesh, while disregarding the fact that a substantial portion of its population are still illiterate or semi-illiterate, was a step in the right direction. In the Western democratic countries, the extension of franchise had been gradual and was accompanied by a corresponding expansion of education.

Whatever arguments may be put forward against the adoption of adult suffrage without the extension of universal education, such adoption has done more good than harm to the cause of democracy in the new democracies. It has raised the level of alertness and political consciousness among the masses and it is through the trial of elections that people will learn the art of self-government. Such elections should be free and fair so that the will of the people can be reflected in the formation of the government. The rigging of elections by the ruling party is still widespread in emergent democracies of Asia and Africa. The incorporation of the provision of a caretaker government in the constitution of Bangladesh was intended to ensure that free and fair elections could be held. Such caretaker government, if composed and operates properly, will ensure that the elections are held independently without the interference of the ruling party. Such provision for a caretaker government should be phased out with the extension of universal education, when the masses acquire the qualities to form their own judgement in exercising their right of vote without any outside influence.

Regular military intervention, undue interference of the head of the state, heterogeneous nationalities, tribes and languages, which adversely affected the working of the parliamentary democracy in Pakistan, did not have any impact on Bangladesh politics. Nevertheless, the military intervention to take over the civil administration following the chaos and confusion created in the country after the assassination of Sheikh Mujib cannot be ignored altogether.

Fortunately, Ershad's misrule for long 9 years perhaps put an end to the prospect of any military intervention in the future. It is true that the socio-economic conditions, political traditions and the absence of the pre- requisites of democracy did not help the growth of the democratic institutions in Bangladesh. Such difficulties and obstacles perhaps could have been overcome by the existence of one province, homogenous nation, race, religion, language and tribe to create an environment for the development of democratic institutions if the politicians were tolerant, well organised, disciplined and perhaps less greedy for power. The analysis of the working of the parliamentary democracy from 1991 to 2004 revealed certain disquieting features differentiating it from its counterpart in the West. The decision of the main political parties in Bangladesh to boycott the parliament and resort to violence and hartal in order to force the ruling party out of power clearly speaks of their intention to capture power without having regard to democratic values.

The fate of democracy in Bangladesh as in many parts of Asia and Africa depends upon the development of a strong and sound footing amongst the people. This may be termed as the infrastructure of democracy, which means the movement for democracy must grow with education and economic improvement. The ultimate success of democracy in new countries including Bangladesh will come only with economic and educational progress, when the importance of democracy as a form of human relationship and as a process permitting changes within a frame of stability can be appreciated by the people.

AKM Abedur Rahaman is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.