Glimmers of hope for a troubled democracy

The question thus arises as to why has it been such an arduous task to build a democratic opposition. Tragically, we are compelled to point our fingers to our political parties who have been unable to create this vital institution. The parties have shied away from creating a fairly open political environment, which calls for an inclusive regime that has low 'barriers' allowing the opposition the opportunities for expression, organisation, and representation of political preference. However, the political history of Bangladesh has not been characterised by such inclusive regimes, rather mostly it has been hegimonistic. Instead of nurturing a democratic opposition, the party which captured power with a "authoritarian within" tendency has treated the opposition not on equal terms but as an arch-enemy and has been all out to put the opposition in disarray, thereby minimising its capacity. The throttling of opposition's voice could be easily discernible from the parliamentary proceedings of the Jatiyo Sangsad, almost non-existent hours devoted to Private member's Bills, and Speaker's partisan role in not allowing opposition to participate in any meaningful debates, and so on and so forth.

On the other hand, the party in opposition is no less responsible for inviting such 'wrath' of the party in power. The opposition's unwillingness to accept the rules of the game, its use of rhetoric ignoring the pressing problems of the nation, inability to come up with a well prepared alternative national policy programme, and dependence on the personality cult of their leaders are equally important in hampering the growth of a democratic opposition. Unfortunate that the opposition also failed to do its task by keeping the government on its toes and by offering alternative government to the people.

The discussion above gives us a brief idea of why building of a democratic opposition has been problematic even after 1991. Time and again we hoped that parties would cooperate with each other in creating space for the evolution of this vital institution. But it was all in vain. The present opposition AL, much to the dismay of the electorate began its role as the opposition following the elections of 2001 with the oft-repeated culture of boycotting Parliament. Since then its presence in the Parliament has been intermittent. Time and again, the main opposition instead of scrutinizing the government by participating in the Parliament, opted for street agitation and politics of hartals.

The last one year has been particularly worrisome. The treasury bench and the opposition seemed to have interlocked into an endless charade of accusations and counter-accusations. The opposition alleged that it was to no avail to attend Parliament because it was not given enough time on the floor and that the Speaker has been partisan, and did not allow the opposition to deliver, and that the vital decisions like formation of Parliamentary Committees, passing of Fourteenth Amendment Bill, etc. were done without opposition consultation. The opposition, thus, insisted that it is these 'barriers' created by the treasury for which the mainstream opposition was 'compelled' to resort to street agitation and politics of hartals. There are some elements of truth in its allegations, as the government has also been allegedly highhanded in dealing with the opposition. Notwithstanding, political analysts pointed out that the culture of boycotting Parliament is not what the opposition should resort to, no matter what. If needed, it may stage daily walkouts to make its point. Resorting to street agitation is not what the electorate who elected them to Parliament expects from their representatives. Rather it is expected that they represent their constituencies properly and ventilate their grievances on the floor of the House.

In this context, the AL decision to stage a comeback to Parliament is, indeed, a noteworthy event, especially when it seems that there is a policy shift in the opposition's strategy i.e. one from boycott to attendance in Jatiyo Sangsad. It is evidenced from the fact that the opposition is not only going to participate in Parliament, but also send representatives to the Parliamentary Committees that were formed last year, accept proportional distribution of women's reserved seats, and take part in the upcoming Gazipur by-election. Now that the main opposition is back to its parliamentary deliberation, evolution of open/conducive political environment is an imperative of the day.

A number of steps need to be taken in order create a conducive environment for this. Among others, the following deserve the attention of our lawmakers. First, there must be qualitative shift in the mindsets of our political leadership. It must be discerned that both ruling party and opposition together represent the nation and govern the country and that without a legal, organised, and responsible opposition the very essence of democracy is at stake. Second, the ruling party should internalise that though figuratively the opposition is its political rival, but in reality the opposition with its own programmes offers an alternative government to the electorate. As such, it must treated on equal terms. Fourth, the opposition should have balanced presence in all parliamentary bodies and a fair representation according to the party-strength. Last, but not the least, the treasury and opposition should find ways and means to ensure opposition's status and rights in Parliament. For example, both in Westminster and in the European models, a certain number of days are designated as opposition days/business in order to balance the Parliamentary agenda, most of which are usually government business. Other measures to ensure opposition's active and forceful role that have been introduced in Westminster Parliamentary Rules to improve the system may be looked into in Bangladesh's context, and, if feasible, should be emulated. In essence, intentions and political commitments must be forthcoming in this regard.

In conclusion, it is stated that the return of the main opposition to the Jatiyo Sangsad is indeed a positive development for democracy in Bangladesh. Hopefully, the opposition will play its designated role while the treasury must create the environment so that it can do so. For more than a decade despite some remarkable strides in socio-economic development Bangladesh teetered on the verge of chaos and disorder due to a dysfunctional political order in which vital institution like the Parliament remained redundant. This is indeed tragic. A functioning Parliament is feasible only with the presence of a democratic opposition. AL's return to Parliament has thus raised glimmers of hope for our troubled democracy. Let us hope that both treasury and opposition would demonstrate their willingness to undertake the arduous task of building a democratic opposition.

Dilara Choudury is Professor of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University.