Elections and the future of democracy

By successful elections, he appeared to have meant free, fair and impartial elections. He also urged political parties to sit down and settle their disputes on reforms. If they are unable to agree on reforms, he reasoned, the constitutional process should continue. He further said that the United States was interested in the working of the electoral process in Bangladesh, but not its outcome. The American ambassador recently echoed almost the same sentiment.

While welcoming Mr. Boucher's desire to see that free and fair elections are held in Bangladesh, let us ask ourselves what it takes to have such elections. The 1991 parliamentary elections are widely viewed to be the fairest of all elections held in independent Bangladesh and it may therefore be instructive to examine them. What enabling conditions prevailed during that time? Do they exist now? In this context, we must also ask ourselvesare only fair elections enough?

It seems that there were seven major factors that contributed positively to making the 1991 elections fair: (a) absolute neutrality of the Caretaker Government (CTG); (b) effectiveness of the Election Commission (EC); (c) impartiality of the bureaucracy; (d) even-handedness of the law enforcement agencies; (e) unity of the people of all walks of life against autocracy; (f) insignificant presence, if any, of criminal elementsowners of black money and muscle powerin politics; and (g) commitment of political parties to democracy, particularly to fair elections. Do we have the same objective conditions present at this time?

Conditions have drastically changed since 1991. The neutrality of the incoming chief adviser of the CTG is, fairly or unfairly, questioned by the opposition parties. The changing of the retirement age of the Supreme Court justices, which ensures that Justice KM Hasan would become the chief of CTG, is primarily responsible for the controversy. With respect to the EC, it has clearly lost the confidence not only of the opposition parties, but also of the public in general. Thus, the two most important constitutional institutions, indirectly and directly responsible for holding fair elections, are now under severe clouds.

Thanks to the widespread misuse and the practice of "clientalism" of the past decade, our bureaucracy is now totally politicised. The law enforcement agencies have mostly become the instruments for aiding and protecting the interests of the ruling elites. We have not even been able to keep our armed forces beyond question. A law enacted in 1991 (law no. 57) included the defense services in the definition of law enforcing agencies, unnecessarily dragging this important institution into controversy.

Patronage politics has managed to divide our entire nation, including teachers, journalists, trade unions, students and the like, into confronting camps. Thus, the unity among the people of all walks of life for democracy and fair elections that prevailed in 1991 is largely gone, and most citizens have now become directly and indirectly affiliated to different political parties. The so-called civil society, with some exceptions, has also increasingly indulged in partisan politics and consequently become the "evil society." In fact, in today's sick and intolerant political environment, which is almost totally devoid of ideology, the cost of remaining neutral has become infinitely high. In addition, even the neutral individuals are branded partisan by vested interest groups to discredit them.

Due to the breakdown of transparency and accountability mechanism and the rule of law during the so-called democratic period of the last decade and a half, politics has now become the den of criminal elements. Instead of upholding democratic values, political parties have become totally committed to winning elections at any cost. Losing elections is no longer an option because losing has very high costsas high as losing one's life. On the other hand, winning gives the winners a "lease" for five years to loot and plunder with impunity. In fact, politics in Bangladesh has become a business and running for parliament is now largely considered to be an investment. The sad reality is that huge sums of ill-gotten money are now floating around to be invested in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Thus, it is clear that the objective conditions are not now conducive to holding fair elections. Given this reality, it is highly unlikely that another round of successful elections can be held in January 2007 without substantive changes in the underlying conditions via major reforms. It may further be noted in this context that the objective conditions have progressively deteriorated since 1991, making the results of subsequent elections increasingly controversial.

One of the biggest threats to holding fair elections in the future is the lack of appropriate political parties in the country. Political parties are the engines of democracy. Democratic, transparent and accountable political parties are essential prerequisites for democracy to effectively function and truly flourish. Unfortunately, we have failed to develop such institutions in our country. There are no laws as such to govern political parties in Bangladesh. They do not even have to be registered with any authority and thus do not have to abide by any restrictions or regulations. And whatever little regulations there are with respect to reporting election expenses are ignored by the political parties. In fact, for all practical purposes, political parties in Bangladesh function more like syndicates, willing to do or undo anything to win elections. The unholy competition that has been going on between the two major political camps to bring Ershad into their fold, amply demonstrates that, like in love and war, everything is fair game in Bangladesh's election-centered politics.

Democracy in Bangladesh has indeed become mostly election-centred. It has become a one-daythe election dayaffair. However, election alone is not democracyelection is only a democratic process compared to autocratic means. Democracy further requires practicing democratic principles and vigorously functioning democratic institutions. Furthermore, as our experiences clearly show, election-only democracy essentially degenerates into elected autocracy.

Elected autocracy necessarily patronises and derives its authority, not from the consent of the people, but from criminal elements owning muscle power and black money. Thus, our political arena has now turned into a safe heaven for criminal elements, engaged in almost uncontrolled looting and pillaging. Through elections we have essentially "empowered" our elected representatives, with some notable exceptions, to steal and plunder with impunity, completely violating the public trust. It is no wonder than that the political bosses in our country are bent upon establishing dynastic rules by hook and by crook in order to perpetuate such illegitimate benefits. This obviously poses a serious threat to our burgeoning democracy.

In fact, democracy in Bangladesh is now ailing, even failing, and there is no sign of its rejuvenation in the near future. Democracy is, as defined by Abraham Lincoln in his celebrated Gettysburg address, is "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Unfortunately, in Bangladesh, democracy has essentially turned into a government of the looters, by the looters, and for the looters. This type of democracy, allowing unabated pillage, cannot and will not survive and be sustained. The recent outburst of extremism throughout the country may be a reflection of such an unsustainable state.

The extremists appear to have come to realise the shakiness of our present democratic edifice, characterised by the entrenched criminalisation of politics and the resulting naked deprivation and exploitation of the common people, their abject poverty, and the lack of good governance. With such a realisation, they seem to have defined their course of actionthat is, to undo the democratic process, which appears to have become, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, "the last refuge of cheap misgovernment," with violent means using religious slogans. Thus, unless the democratic exercise can be made meaningful and its failures can be effectively arrested, I am afraid, we face the risk of turning Bangladesh into a truly theocratic state. While this is a long-term threat, the extremists may also be an immediate menace to holding peaceful elections in coming January.

It is clear that an enabling environment does not exist for holding free, fair, impartial and peaceful elections at this time. Thus, we need significant systemic and institutional reforms for changing the objective conditions before holding elections. We are concerned that if we force another round of elections in 2007 without appropriate reforms and negotiated agreements among major political parties, we take the risk of making them unacceptable, pushing Bangladesh to a path of serious political instability. This will only create a perfect breeding ground for the extremists.

We need to reform the electoral process to include, among other things, negative voting, the recall system, preventing voting for lamp-posts, and other measures to keep criminals and plunderers away from the political arena. We must institute measures to reduce electoral expenses and expeditious adjudication of electoral disputes. We must also ensure the neutrality of the caretaker government. Most of all, we need to strengthen the Election Commission by making it independent of the Prime Minister's Secretariat and appointing in it self-respecting and neutral individuals. There must also be full and complete disclosures of the antecedents of candidates, including their financial records. However, we are afraid that these changes without significant reform of the political parties will not take us very far. Fair elections are not possible unless political parties and their nominated candidates behave and practice democratic norms.

However, even fair elections are not enough. Elections must also be meaningful in that they bring about significant changes in the quality of political leadership. Clearly, we need leadership which is honest, competent and dedicated to people's welfare rather than to naked self-interest. Such leadership will not be forthcoming on its own unless there is reform of the political parties and their registration is made compulsory. Requirements for registration must be the practice of democracy within the party hierarchy, their financial transparency and the reform of their nomination process to prevent people from buying political power with money. Only with such political party reforms, along with other changes, may we expect reasonably free and fair elections, which may bring a positive and meaningful outcome for the common people of Bangladesh.

I began this article by referring to two American high officials. Let me conclude it by quoting a famous American president, Ronald Reagan. He once said: "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. But I have come to realize that it bears a close resemblance with the first." This is probably more true in the today's Bangladesh which is witnessing an election frenzy. Instead of being blown away by the frenzy, the thoughtful citizens and friends of Bangladesh must now pointedly ask themselves: what would be the long-term benefits or harms, if any, of holding yet another election to the people of Bangladesh without changing the rules of the game through significant systemic and institutional reforms? Will it hurt or help our democratic move forward? While raising these questions, we must do everything possible to ensure that elections are held and held on time.

Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar is Secretary, Shujan (Citizens for Good Governance).