Making a mockery of democracy

Parliament is responsible to ensure accountability of the government to the people

They fought against the British rule and played a significant role in achieving independence and the creation of Pakistan. When that victory failed to deliver the desired result of establishing social justice, the people of Bangladesh again took up an armed struggle to drive out more than one hundred thousand well trained and heavily armed Pakistani soldiers from the land.

It is sad to note that each time, the victories could not be sustained by the people. The victory was stolen and the benefits were hijacked by a group of self-seekers, depriving the masses who were the major factor in the triumphs. It is frustrating to witness that this beneficiary class in many cases took position against the people during their movement against colonial or repressive regimes. As such, when the win is taken over by a faction of the defeated forces, the course of history gradually shifts back towards the old path against which the people waged war in the first place.

Let us consider the struggle for independence of Bangladesh. The people of the then East Pakistan demanded to end to deprivation and to receive due share of the national resources. Secularism was not so prominent in the wish list of the people initially.

But, when the repressive forces of the then Pakistan nakedly started abusing Islam for justifying irrational activities, secularism got prominence, and became a popular aspiration. When their reasonable expectations were denied, the people of Bangladesh were left with no other option but armed struggle for creation of a new sovereign country.

It had been the expectation that the new country would deliver a society based on democratic principals of social justice and rule of law where every citizen would be allowed due share without discrimination. Shortly after the victory it started to become clear that the resultant state was far from meeting any of the aspirations of the people.

More than thirty years has elapsed since the creation of Bangladesh. If considered against the expectations of the people, it is obvious that not only have the aspiration not been fulfilled, but that the opposite happened. Though it may be shocking, the reality is that the country is being run now in a way more or less as was the desire of the deposed Pakistani rulers, with the assistance of elements who were once their allies.

This could have never been possible if the country would have run democratically. Democracy ensures the rulers are chosen by the people. Democracy also ensures that the rulers are accountable to the people. Democratic system thus keeps constant pressure on the people in charge for fulfillment of hopes and aspirations of the population. The poor governance after the emergence of Bangladesh clearly indicates the lack of democratic practice in managing the affairs of state.

During the late eighties a mass movement was waged against the rule of military-led governments, blood was spilled and people sacrificed to establish democracy. Parliamentary democracy was thus introduced during the early nineties with a pledge to execute all functions of the state in accordance with the hopes and aspirations of the people through a government elected by the people. Accountability of the government to the people was to be ensured through a parliament. Unfortunate for the people, no mentionable improvement occurred even after that. Bangladesh continued to be ruled in the same autocratic way without any trace of accountability to the people, and the natural expectations of the people were nowhere to be reflected in the actions of the government. Interestingly, the country continued to be run by the same or similar elements as it had been with the past autocratic regimes.

In democracy, to ensure choice of the people in selection of their ruler, there must be election process which is free from all sorts of undue influence and fair in operation. Democratic system must also provide effective monitoring and control mechanism to make the ruler not only accountable to the public but also responsive to their hopes and aspirations.

In Bangladesh, the process of putting undue pressure on the outcome of next election results or influencing the national election starts the day a new government ascends to power. The process of election result manipulation continues throughout the entire tenure of a government. In the process, the choice of people in selecting their ruler and of changing the ruler is denied.

The PM, in forming the Cabinet, appoints some ministers, in addition to their normal responsibilities, as Ministers in Charge of Districts. There does not exist any provision anywhere in our constitution to create a District Minister and assign him with the authority of a super administrator of the district above all the government functionaries there.

The positions are made with the sole purpose of placing the entire administration of a district under the complete control of the ruling party. All the government benefits, business, property, jobs, etc are used and misused by the ruling party people to serve their partisan interest with the direct interference of the District Minister.

The PM is also seen appointing advisors giving them rank and status of minister, state minister, etc. At times the advisors are also being provided with the responsibility of running administration of a ministry. There is no provision in the constitution to appoint advisor or to assign them responsibility of ministry or a part of it, except during the tenure of caretaker government.

Article 19(2) of the constitution ensures effective measures to remove social and economic inequality, to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth among citizens, and to ensure opportunity in order to attain a uniform level of economic development throughout the country.

But the PM has constituted a special office, one prime function of which is to identify different infrastructural and welfare oriented projects in different sectors as "PM's Priority Projects" on the basis of partisan interest. Money is sanctioned in areas with ruling alliance MPs. Important leaders of the ruling alliance including the PM visit places and ask the people to provide support to the government in future elections to get development funds, which can be considered an effort to influence freeness and fairness of election. The PM is breaking her oath of office and also violating the constitution by using public funds as per her own priority list made on the basis of partisan interest.

The above are mentioned to give a glimpse of a small fraction of the total irregularities of the political party in power, including its important and responsible officials. The opposition also indulges in irregularities. So in the process, criminals with black money and muscle power are getting more and more importance in the election

game, and as such, in politics as a whole. In place of free and fair election, the objective has now become manipulation. Success and failure of a person or a party in politics now depends on how effectively and efficiently election process could be influenced to twist the result.

Parliament has been made responsible to ensure accountability of the government to the people. In order to perform that function effectively, parliament must be provided with enough authority and power. But, in reality, the opposite is true.

Parliament is to consist of all MPs from both opposition and treasury benches, excepting the Ministers of the government. MPs are to stand as adversary to the government in parliament. The idea is that Ministers including the PM are to face all the MPs on the floor of the parliament, who by virtue of being elected directly by the people, would ensure accountability of government to the people through them.

But the constitution bars MPs from taking a position against the party line, which also put a barrier to government party MPs' ability to take a stand against government decisions. The government thus is assured of captive support of the party MPs in parliament. Parliament is weakened due to this provision of the constitution and is reduced for all practical purposes to minority number of opposition MPs only. Obviously, this parliament can in no way enforce accountability of the government.

In the UK, the PM is known as first among equals. This confirms that the PM is an MP and is equal to all other MPs. The only difference is he or she is to be counted as first among his or her other MP colleagues. Why is it so? Because if the MPs are to monitor the actions of the PM and Ministers, they need to be equal to them as a person.

If you compare that to what exists here, our Ministers are considered to be much superior to ordinary MPs. The Prime Minister's position in our country is so high that there cannot be any comparison with it. So who would be capable to see fault in the actions of the government Ministers, especially of the Prime Minister?

With little possibility of a free and fair election and no possibility of a government accountable to the people, the society as per the hopes and aspirations of the people can never be achieved. Under the circumstance, can we term what we are practicing to be democracy or are we making a mockery of democracy?

GM Quader is a Member of Parliament.