Democracy is indeed a process of 'accommodation' involving a combination of 'conflicts'. The vast majority of citizens in a democracy must have no doubt or mental reservations as to which political community they belong to Democracy is a system of rule by temporary majorities. In order that rulers and policies may freely change, the boundaries must endure, the composition of the citizenry be continuous. In an age of modernisation people are unlikely to feel a preponderant sense of loyalty except to a political community large enough to achieve some considerable degree of modernity in its social and economic life.

The dynamic process of democratisation itself is set off by a prolonged and inconclusive political struggle. In Sweden at the turn of the century it was struggle first of farmers and then of an urban lower-middle and working class against a conservative alliance of bureaucracies, large land owners and industrialists and the issues were tariffs, taxation, military service and suffrage. In Turkey it was mainly a contest of countryside versus city, of large and middling farmers against the heirs of bureaucratic-military establishment, the central issue being industrialisation versus agricultural development. In Sweden intense economic development created new political tensions. In Turkey the demand for rural development resulted in the beginning of democratisation.

No two existing democracies have gone through a struggle between the very same forces over the same issues and with the same institutional outcome. It seems unlikely that any future democracy will follow in the precise footsteps of its predecessors. Some economists (e.g. Hirschman) have argued that a country can best launch into a phase of growth not by slavishly imitating the example of nations already industrialised but rather by making the most of its particular natural and human resources and fitting these accurately into the international division of labour. Similarly a country is likely to attain democracy not by copying the constitutional law or parliamentary practices of some previous democracy, but rather by honestly facing upto its particular conflicts and by devising or adopting effective procedures for their accommodation. Serious and prolonged nature of struggle is likely to force the protagonists to rally around two banners. The fight may go on and on till the protagonists are weary and the issues fade away without the emergence of any democratic solution along the way. Or one group may find a way of crushing the opponents after all. In these and other ways an apparent evolution may be deflected, and at no time more easily than during the preparatory phase.

Transition to democracy is a slow and complex process. However, it does not rule out suffrage or freedom of opposition as conscious goals in the preparatory struggle. Nor does it suggest that a country ever becomes a democracy in a fit of absent-mindedness. On the contrary, what concludes the preparatory phase is a deliberate decision on the part of the political leaders to accept the existence of diversity in unity and to that end to institutionalise some crucial aspect of democratic procedure. Democracy is acquired by a process of conscious decision at least on the part of the top political leadership. Politicians are specialists in power, and a fundamental power shift (such as from oligarchy to democracy) will not escape their notice.

Democracy is a competitive process, and this competition gives an edge to those who can rationalise their commitment to it, and an even greater edge to those who sincerely believe in it. "The process of democracy", says Rustow, "institutes a double process of Darwinian selectivity in favour of convinced democrats; one among parties in general elections and the other among politicians vying for leadership within these parties." (DA Rustow, Transition to democracy: Towards a dynamic model).

Politics consists not only of competition for office, it is also a process for solving conflicts within human groups. A new political regime is a novel prescription for taking joint chances on the unknown. With its basic practice of multilateral debate, democracy, in particular, involves a process of trial and error, a joint learning experience. It has been observed that the difference between social and economic issues, rather than issues of the community can be handled easily in democracy. The difficulty the democracy finds in resolving issues of community emphasises the importance of national unity as the background condition of democratisation process.

The transition to democracy may require some common attitudes and some distinct attitudes on the part of the politician and the common citizen. The distinction is clearly evident during the habituation phase. Three sorts of process are at work at this stage. They are (a) politicians and citizens learn from the successful resolution of some issues to their faith in the new rules and apply them to new issues, (b) experience with democratic practices and competitive recruitment will confirm the politicians in their democratic practices and beliefs, and (c) the population at large will become firmly fitted into new structure by forging of effective links of party organisation that connect the politicians in the capital with the mass electorate throughout the country. The parliamentary parties will seek support from the constituency organisations to insure a steady supply of members for their group in future parliaments.

There is some serious misunderstanding about popular government that they do not employ coercion. However, they cannot do so effectively unless violators are few in number and lack support and sympathy among population at large. An attempt at coercing a large number of people, even short of a majority is unusually difficult in a polyarchy. Extensive coercion places a strain on any political system, even a dictatorship, but popular governments find it most difficult of all. If civil disobedience on a grand scale, or even civil war, is to be avoided a government engaged in coercing large minorities needs to have at its disposal an imposing array of coercive forces such as a centralised and disciplined police system, a secret police, a compliant judiciary, military and bureaucratic establishments ready to obey the government when "duty" requires coercion of large numbers of fellow citizens, and a body of law, constitutional doctrine, and practices that permit the government to employ the forces. Thus no sane element would suggest for heavy reliance on coercion so far as Bangladesh is concerned.

In general the conditions that decrease the need for coercion and increase the prospects for peaceful adjustment are also favourable to popular government. The larger the area of agreement among different actors on what would constitute a desirable solution, the better the chances for a peaceful adjustment.

Individuals vary in their psychological dispositions toward peaceful adjustment, deadlock, and coercion. The likelihood of peaceful adjustment depends on the personality characteristics of the individuals who influence the decisions of the various parties to a conflict. Immaturity lowers the chances for peaceful adjustment. It May be stated in this regard that there are two polar types in political systems -- the agitator and the negotiator. An agitator places high value on the emotional response of the public. He is notoriously contentious and undisciplined. He is willing to subordinate personal considerations to the superior claims of principle. He sees "unworthy" motives where others see the just claims of friendship. By contrast the negotiator is a compromiser. He is more concerned with an acceptable solution to a conflict than a just or perfect solution.

The pragmatic politician and the agitator both may contribute to the stability of a popular government. The former wants to know what public opinion is; he does not much care what it ought to be. The agitator is interested in what public is only so that he can change it to what it ought to be.

Democratic stability requires a commitment to democratic values or rules not among the electorate at large but among the professional politicians. If our leading politicians accept heavy coercion, certainly our development effort in a highly corrupt society with explosive law and order situation may be frustrated and there may be negative growth in investment. If simple resignation of two members from a party which represents more than two-thirds majority in the parliament results in such a fury, destruction and obstruction, if the minority communities cannot be assured of adequate security, if our entrepreneurs are to live in constant fear and tension, how there can be any hope for democratic stability? It is indeed extremely doubtful that our limping democracy may survive if present political situation does not improve quickly and substantially.

Whatever has happened to Major (retd) Mannan during the last few days indicate how much intolerant has become the party whose founder fought valiantly for democracy and sacrificed even his life. Is the party now led by people suffering from paranoid delusion or 'agitator' political leaders derive pleasure from anti-adult antics? Bangladesh is regarded as the only moderate democratic country among Islamic states. Are we going to lose this good name? We sincerely wish for prevailing of good sense upon the leaders of the four-party alliance government. They must not overlook the fact that attaining democracy in a poor and least developed country like Bangladesh is extremely difficult though destruction is very easy.

A B M S Zahur is a retired Joint Secretary