What is the price for the house of democracy?

The house
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a democracy activist in not-so-poor Gulshan. That person explained that our political process could be compared to a house being prepared to be rented out. What we needed was to educate the two sets of prospective tenants. They would compete for the right to stay in the house for five years and were told (trained) to act responsibly while they took occupation. Thinking about this analogy, I realised how a well-to-do individual can be so blase about who will take occupation, as long as it is not his or her own house.

Normally landlords are very cautious and do not allow just anybody to take over their precious house. The worst cases are where the tenants refuse to ever leave, stealing the property. Others do not pay rent on time or are always behind. Yet others sub-let rooms without permission. What you thought was a "small quiet family of five" becomes a mysterious series of twenty-five relatives moving in and ruining the place. The bathrooms are smashed. The kitchen is trashed. Windows are broken. The whole place is reduced to a shambles.

Once you had got rid of one bunch of "tenants from hell," you handed over the keys to another lot -- who said they were nothing like the ones before. They really were different. OK, some of their chachas and older relatives might have been a little naughty, but these new ones were going to be good.

They lied!
Five years later, with the house trashed again, the landlord counted the cost. The rent barely covered the repair costs. Was it worth the bother?

The middle class (or the more intellectual parts) seems to think it was worth it. They have always relied on democracy propelling us to prosperity.

They can offer very little evidence for this, from the experience of Asia or Africa.

The Asian miracle economies were not ruled by true democratic regimes. Let us go through the list. The current favourite, China, is hardly a model of parliamentary democracy. Since 1949, they have been consistently far ahead of India in practically every indicator of quality of life (except the right to vote). Per head, the undemocratic Chinese eat twice as much as one billion democratic Indians.

When South Korea was in its most rapid period of growth (1960s to 1980s), they were ruled by military dictatorships. For most of the last fifty years, a one party state has ruled Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia (at best through "guided democracy," which is a mask for preservation of power in the same hands). It is not the presence or absence of democracy that has determined whether a country has made it or not.

Prosperity and development has come about because of strategic vision, determined leadership, social consensus (forced or agreed), and geopolitical factors. When Mahathir Mohamad started this whole Look East business in 1980, he and the other Asian leaders that followed were not scouring the region for democracy. They were looking for a model of development. We can all agree that the perfect world would be one where democratically elected leaders implemented a real development strategy and obtain our gratitude so that we vote them in next time. Don't look for perfection here.

I would like to see an opinion poll in Kawran Bazar or any other food market during the month of Ramadan. I would like to know whether middle class consumers (voters) are as enthusiastic for democracy as they were even five years ago, let alone in 1990.

Is this democracy?
The word democracy is part of the problem. We might think democracy involves choice, empowerment and participation in decision-making. Do we really believe we have democracy in Bangladesh?

I cannot see the point in a false choice between two sets of self-seekers. Like most citizens, I would turn a blind eye to "reasonable levels" of corruption as long as things got done. Bangladesh possesses only representative democracy. We send 300 individuals to Parliament to represent our interests. They lie to us, take our vote, and then proceed to enrich themselves. I used to buy the argument that "this is a process. It takes time. You have to be patient. New people will come in. There will be evolution." Not any more.

I think fourteen years should be sufficient time for judgement. There has been nothing much to show for it. Evolution will not be replaced by an old-fashioned revolution. Nevertheless, we do need a revolution in thinking about how we are governed, by whom, and for what purpose.

The house of democracy is on the verge of collapse, having being systematically destroyed from within. We have to find a new set of decent tenants, soon. I have not seen any, have you? Otherwise, the landlord will take down the To Let sign and go for a different solution.

Farid Bakht is a freelance contributor.