How much democracy does a country need?

THE question is not easy to answer, and one hopes that one does not meet the fate of Pahom, of, "How much land does a man need?" in trying to determine the optimum quantity of democracy for a country. After all, how much democracy is enough that can satisfy the people? Who quantifies that? Is it manna or salwa in their bag that the political leaders determine the quantity that should be given to the people, or is it something that is absolute with no fractions, which the people inherit as a birthright? 

Please forgive me if it reads like the ramblings of a rickety mind. But the question has been generated by comments of some senior leaders of the ruling party. Reportedly, one of the remarks was, "… the more democracy they have, the more they demand. They're always demanding more, more and more."

The reason for such a reaction was the call by the Citizen's Committee, a platform of men of standing in the society, to bring necessary changes to the constitution for a more functional democratic system. And for this the Committee recommended the formation of a "constitution reform commission."  

What perhaps these leaders find irksome is the suggestion by the said committee that the proposed commission should work on how to bring checks and balance of power between the three organs of the state in order that none can have absolute authority over state control. This would, as the protagonists of constitutional reforms aver, ensure good governance and equity. 

The reaction of the AL was predictable and one can safely assert that had it been the BNP in place of AL, the reaction would not have been any different. After all, who would want to have his or her 'powers' clipped? However, the dislike of our political leaders of any suggestion of constitutional reform is inexplicable. 

While there may be divided opinions in some countries on the very issue of constitutional reforms, there are instances of many countries that establish such a committee periodically to look at the constitution to infuse it with the dynamism to conform to the changing times. The contention that, "A Constitution is framed for ages to come and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it," (Chief Justice John Marshall of USA - 1821) risks rendering any constitution irrelevant if it fails to meet the basic propositions of the charter i.e. the greater good of the greater majority. And no good can come to the people if democracy suffers from shortcomings, some of which we are witnessing at the moment. 

However, while one talks about constitutional reforms, one is not for a moment talking of 'revising' the Constitution but bringing in appropriate changes. After all, our constitution has seen fifteen amendments, the Indian constitution a hundred, some of which were based on suggestions made by constitutional reform committees set up from time to time by the government of the day in India. The regrettable aspect of the fifteen amendments to our constitution is that none of them was generated by people's interest. On the contrary all, but one of them, was motivated by narrow partisan considerations.

Just to jog our memory, this is not the first time that the idea of constitutional reform has been raised. In 2008, the Election Commission had broached the idea of forming a constitution review commission to "recommend amendments critical to ensuring a strong parliamentary democracy." Some of the issues that came in for reckoning included: allowing lawmakers to play due role in parliament, increasing the number of parliamentary seats, introducing bi-cameral parliament and proportional representation, raising the number of reserved seats for women through direct election and restructuring power between the highest constitutional posts.  

The EC's proposals also included the one on Article 70 of the constitution that says a lawmaker from a political party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from the party or votes against it in parliament. And the recommendations were the outcome of talks between the EC and the political parties on electoral reforms. 

Obviously, our democracy can be improved in many ways. The highest court of the country felt constrained to offer formulas to tide over the burning electoral issue—conduct of the parliamentary election—as the High Court did in its full judgement on the Jan 5 elections. The recommendations of the Citizen's Committee contain very relevant issues that deserve serious consideration and not summary rejection. 

The writer is Editor, Oped & Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.