Right to govern: Leaders' pledges and voters aspirations

It has very often been said that the 20th century was the century of the common man. As one looks around, one wonders whether the common man in the past century was more a victim than a beneficiary. Nonetheless, the development of various human rights instruments was quite visible in the past century.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted following the end of the second World War, the right of every person to participate in his or her government, and to share in the selection of that government through free choice, was proclaimed. One must be aware that the many nations which adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not have a universal definition of what the political process should be in their respective countries. Nonetheless, the United Nations adopted the international covenant on civil and political rights several years later, which again re-iterates the right to participate in one's government.

The specific relationship of this concept to the functions of government today arises, because, as we know, there are many nations which, even in this 21st century, do not have free elections. However, there are also nations which are attempting to have free elections following a period of dictatorial military rule, or following a period when there were legal restrictions which excluded the participation of the people in determining their country's policies for governance and participation.

More or less every country is now trying to organize political affairs, or managing the affairs of the state, through some political system. These countries are apparently, or practically, being run by a set of people who are using their authority as the representatives of the people. The main issue, therefore, is their authority to govern, and how this authority has been earned. Contrarily, how this authority has been snatched away by physical force, or by any other means of questionable nature. As for the political process through which the right to govern has been earned or managed, everybody is claiming it to be credible, acceptable and therefore the mandate of the people. But in reality things are not always the same, and the ground rules are often not very clearly defined regarding the freeness, fairness and credibility of the electoral process.

In any case, free and contested elections are critical to all definitions that distinguish democratic systems from other forms of government. Voting typifies the way in which most people take part in democratic politics. In democracies, those who would rule can only reach their goals by convincing enough citizens to cast ballots for them, and not for the other would-be rulers. Consequently, candidates devote enormous amounts of time, money and energy to attract voters. No wonder, then, that questions of who votes and how many votes are central to democratic politics.

Elections are a process of choice. But they are not necessarily a choice between alternatives, and if they are, they are seldom, if ever, a simple process of choice. Most electoral systems are, in fact, required to enable the electorate to do at least two rather different things at the same time. One is to choose candidates, the other is to register the approval of certain policies. Now, it is not wholly possible to register approval or disapproval of any specific policy by the choice of candidates because candidates do not necessarily agree with one another on specific policies. This can be true even in cases where they regard themselves as being of the same party or holding very similar views. There are, moreover, numerous policies to be accounted for, many of which may seem irrelevant to an individual candidate, or to the electors in the area in which he/she is standing. All elections, therefore, involve some compromise between things as they ought to be and things as they are.

The people of Bangladesh are going to exercise their choice very soon. Their choice will be for candidates as well as for their programmes. The politicians will announce their pledges to draw the attention of the voters, while the voters will have clear aspirations and expectations from the leaders they will choose for governing them for the next five years.

The people of Bangladesh on this auspicous 35th Victory Day can genuinely aspire that their new leaders will ensure restoration of good governance in every field of our social political and economic life. They expect that the parliament will be the real seat of power where the parliamentarians will get the opportunity to discuss all the major issues of the country, and that laws will be enacted for the welfare of the common people. Voters' aspirations will not be too much if they ask for an uninterrupted supply of power throughout the country so that the production line of the manufacturing companies remain undisturbed, and the farmers can have power at the time of their irrigation purposes.

The voters must have the right to buy essential items at reasonable prices, and they can make such a demand to the politicians. This demand is not too much to ask for, and as citizens of the country they have the right to have a decent and peaceful life. The voters can demand effective communication to orient the service providers to the role and rights of the public and also to sensitise the public, specially the vulnerable, about their public rights.

The voters have the right to ask for separation of judiciary, as per the directives of the higher courts, because the independence of the judiciary and the modernization of the legal infrastructure and judicial procedures are critical elements of any programme of governance reforms.

Above all the major problem for Bangladesh has been the all pervasive corruption that has not only created uncertainties in the policy environment but has also raised the cost of doing business. Therefore, the leaders and politicians have a responsibility, as well as obligation, to the voters who aspire for good governance and proper behaviour from them while exercising their authority in running the affairs of the state.

The political parties and candidates are the real actors of any democratic election, and credibility of any election largely depends on their behaviour pattern and mode of operations before, during and finally after the election.

Finally, at the same time the losing party, or parties, serves as alternate government in opposition, scrutinizing the government, criticizing its policies and administration, publicizing its blunders, offering alternative programmes and techniques and standing ready to assume the responsibilities of the office whenever the voters favour them. Thus, in a democratic system the leaders of the government as well as those of the opposition have almost the same responsibilities and obligations to the voters.

Zahid Hossain is a political analyst