Global context
Real dictators aside, there are many democratic dictators around the world who govern in the name of their people but, in fact, their actions are mostly based on their own unilateral decisions according to their own whimsical approaches to different situations and, ultimately, this puts the people, particularly the men and women in uniform, in the harms way.

The invasion of Iraq by President Bush, with the open support of Prime Minister Blair of the UK, is a glaring example in the international arena.

Both the leaders misled their own people, and those around the world, by giving wrong and manipulated information on the al-Qaeda connection with Saddam relating to 9/11, and a false alarm on the existence of nuclear bombs that could reach Europe and America in "45 minutes," but when they failed to prove these, the latest gimmick was export of democracy.

On the Iraq attack, Colin Powel, the then secretary of state said: "This is lunacy." (ref. The Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward). But one or two "Vulcans" around President Bush continued to push him to finally go for Saddam despite warnings even from his own father, Bush senior, certainly a more intelligent and wiser person.

On February 28, 1999, at a Gulf War veterans gathering, senior Bush said: "Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it… And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupier -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." (ref. State of Denial by Bob Woodward).

Every word turned out to be valid.

Today, more than two-thirds of Americans have deserted Bush because of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Practically all the Democrats, and many Republicans, have openly spoken against President Bush and his latest "lunacy" of sending another 21,500 troops to the Iraqi desert to, indeed, sacrifice American lives in greater numbers.

Interestingly, practically all the "Vulcans" who pushed Bush into the Iraq war have left the administration, leaving President Bush all alone in the field -- even Rumsfeld has left. This is what happens to a democratic dictator.

The Iraq war has virtually cost Tony Blair his premiership, because the British people, more democratic by any standard, and particularly the British Labour Party, were very vocal about their opposition to the Iraq war.

President Bush would have faced a similar situation had America followed parliamentary democracy. Anyway, you never know -- American legislators may be less informed about the world, but no less democratic. Bush has to swim against the strong current in the next 22 months of his presidency; anything may happen, including Iraq Gate.

The Iran storm is gathering momentum. Ahmedinjad would be no less than Saddam when it comes to Iran's national interest. The world has certainly been made more dangerous by Bush-Blair "lunacy."

Bangladesh context
Bangladesh's democratic dictatorship since the fall of the undemocratic dictator in 1991 also figures prominently in world political affairs.

Having faced unprecedented political turmoil in 1996, the caretaker government (CTG) system, something unheard of in the democratic world, was introduced in Bangladesh. This system reflected the political parties' total no-confidence in each other. This system has, indeed, destroyed the entire administrative, business, professional and finally the judicial system of the country. In other words, today, all the basic democratic institutions of the country stand destroyed.

The devastation of the country's systems has been carried out by the successive governments, indeed on competitive basis, as the real intention of the respective political parties was to grab state power, or remain in power.

The unfortunate part of this power play is that the political parties are dominated by a small, well-knit, group of greedy people -- it would be wrong to call them leaders -- who concentrate on making money and owing property, in the process destroying the very system of democracy. The result is serious chaos and disruption of peoples' lives, which needs urgent treatment by some special constitutional arrangement.

Democratic dictators
The entire responsibility of such a situation lies with the political leadership; in Bangladesh this leadership has largely failed. The reason is clear -- no democracy in the political parties -- all revolves round Madam or Apa. They are, indeed, democratic dictators -- as there are often so-called elections in the political parties, but the result is obvious -- Madam and Apa emerge as sure winners in the respective party elections, if and when such elections take place.

Many members of the major political parties are so fearful that they dare not go against Madam or Apa, lest they incur the displeasure of the chiefs and are left out of the political booty.

The remedy lies in introducing real democracy in the political parties by which new leaders who have new ideas and visions may be elected, and that may lead ultimately to over-all democratic behaviour in the entire political system.

Two poles
The other most disturbing thing that has seriously disturbed our political system is that Madam and Apa are poles apart mentally and, unfortunately, politically. They do not even exchange salam (greetings), let alone talk to each other even if they ever happen to sit side by side.

This personal animus has led to sharp political rivalry, where it is practically impossible to find common political ground on which these two major political parties could take the country forward.

This is why Bangladesh, which has so much economic potential, including strong commitments from our young professionals, businessmen and several forward-looking politicians, to become a mid-level developed country within a few years, stands practically stagnated.

National shame
Is it not a great shame that some political leaders, businessmen, professionals etc go into hiding to avoid arrest by law enforcing agencies, or are off-loaded from planes before they could undertake their foreign trips? What does money make, or give, if the very prestige of a person is lost? What do they then live for -- tons of money, luxury cars, big houses in Dhaka and abroad? Disgraceful indeed!

These individuals must ponder over these issues very seriously for their own sakes, and also for the sake of the country. The politicians have special responsibilities as, while in power, they deal with the policies and administration that directly touch the common people. The most important thing for them is not only their electoral commitments to the people, but their honest implementation as well, leaving aside all personal interest and greed for power. The greed for power and money is the source of all evil, and ultimately leads to social disgrace and political downfall.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador.