The conventional diagnosis of this problem is one-dimensional. It focuses on institutional problems of political parties and other institutions but is blind towards neo-liberal policy ideals. In this perspective, the critique of corruption has gained momentum nowadays.

It misses some crucial aspects of power dynamics at national level. In liberal democracy, the formation of a decision-making group at national level does not ensure the representation of various groups in a society. Against this backdrop, I sketch a draft agenda to initiate the practice of social democracy. The objective is to enhance our understanding of democracy to achieve a democratized democracy.

Liberal democracy ensures political freedom that lays a solid foundation for development. Such a framework ignores structural issues within a society. This is what Professor Richard Sandbrook and his colleagues, in their book Social Democracy in Global Periphery (2007), label "system-level problem." This "system-level problem" is ignored by neo-liberal thinkers.

Neo-liberal ideals provide us specific policy options for a "good" society, which is a kind of ideal construction of neo-liberalism. This is colonial in attitude, since it makes a comparison between the North and the South. To accelerate the pace of development, we need a program of action that spreads over time and space. The combination of temporal and spatial agendas in development planning ensures greater benefit.

The changing political context in Bangladesh provides an opportunity to rethink about liberal democracy. Certainly, an assessment of 15 years of democracy will not paint a rosy picture of institutional reform, democratic political culture, and social development.

Under the circumstances, we can think of an alternative to liberal democracy; "social democracy." Instead of the domination of the elite, it will introduce a cross-class coalition, which will enhance a broader agenda of social development.

Under liberal democracy, it is hardly possible to implement the three major themes of development: equality and social justice, freedom, and solidarity. Social democracy is based on a broader framework of democratic principles. We should not confuse equality and social justice with equality under law, as the promoters of liberal democracy do. It means economic and social equality. Equality under law minimizes the scope of democratic principles.

Social democracy moves beyond the interpretation of freedom as meaning only individual freedom, and strives for freedom from discrimination and dependence. Keeping these ideas in mind, we should make a thorough examination of democracy as practiced in many developing countries.

Social democracy could be viewed as counter-ideology to neo-liberalism. It offers people-oriented capitalist principles. It will accept market economy, but subject it to public interests, which democratic governments rarely care for. Their agenda is to serve market interests, and the vested quarters will exploit national policies.

To achieve benefits, neo-liberal thinkers stipulate some common assumptions: individual as unit of analysis, market exchange, and individual as rational being. They ignore power hierarchy in society and in the market.

Critics say that a state can fulfill democratic public interests, but under the hegemony of neo-liberalism it faces enormous crisis. The elite, who are always at the center of power dynamics, share the same assumptions. But they cannot exert influence over external forces, and seem indifferent toward promotion of equality and social justice.

Can socialism be an alternative to neo-liberalism? Socialism, in which the state plays a leading role in development planning, can be a counter to neo-liberalism. However, there are not many successful cases of socialism, except Cuba.

The socialist principles had collapsed in Russia. China is developing a mixture of capitalism and socialism, and has achieved high economic growth, although it results in inequality within society, which critics call "two countries within one country."

Economic growth, unless it promotes equality and social justice, fails to offer greater benefit. Social democracy offers equality and social justice, and moves beyond the principles of socialism. A congenial democratic environment is needed to raise such a coalition to state level. Under liberal democracy, there is little room for engaging a cross-section of people in governance.

Corruption is a by-product of liberal democracy and produces new types of inequality in developing countries. Liberal democracy cannot eliminate the problem of corruption. Social democracy can introduce a new system, and can spawn changes in governance to eliminate corruption.

Specific measures have to be adopted at local, national and global level to ensure social democracy at all levels. This can ensure participation of people from all sections of society.

However, we have to create links among these three levels. Local level initiatives may not reach national level unless there is an effort to enhance smooth relationship between them. The formation of power dynamics at national level is crucial, since it will negotiate the rules of games at global level. Thus, national level will play double role: enhancing local level changes and maintaining negotiation at global level.

Today, many political analysts advocate the consolidation of democracy in developing countries, which, rather than promoting a solid foundation for development principles that benefit society, serves the interests of neo-liberal agendas. After a careful analysis of democracy in newly democratic countries, Fareed Zakaria (1997) labels it "illiberal democracy" for its failure to ensure greater public interests.

When we talk about the consolidation of democracy, we have to keep in mind the results of liberal democracy that we have experienced since 1991. Liberal democracy cannot bring about tangible changes in the fortunes of the masses, which was the chief aim of Bangladesh's liberation war. Gradually, mainstream political parties have detached themselves from that dream, and have devoted themselves to serving the interest of global forces.

Some analysts lay emphasis on reforms to overhaul various national institutions and political parties, and make them democratic and accountable. However, reforms will not offer us much benefit unless there is an ideological change at the national level. We have to rethink democracy, national planning, and development. How could we get maximum benefit from our available resources?

The choice is dichotomous: a) either we would like to be dominated by neo-liberal policy agendas; b) or we would like to make tangible changes at all levels of society. The latter fits well with the interest of the masses, who are more conscious about development policies, outcomes of these policies, and corruption, than they were earlier.

They could strengthen local level initiatives for tangible change. Such a foundation will work as the springboard of social democracy. Who will make these agents of change at the grassroots level?

What emerges from this discussion about autonomy of state under neo-liberalism? The key message is to prepare the ground for social democracy. Class coalition, greater role for state, subjecting market under democratic public interests, and greater alliance of local level initiatives towards tangible change are key focal issues of the social democracy project.

The ultimate result is a democratized democracy. Liberal democracy does not offer an opportunity to people from various professional groups (not just politicians) to join in power dynamics. The representation of various classes will ensure stronger role of state.

Omar Mohamed is a graduate student at the University of Toronto.