Our continuing struggle for a working democracy
Parties began to be created from the top. Patronage and corruption became means of mustering support. The united popular movement of the 80s had sought to restore democratic practices and values. The success of that movement made it possible for parliamentary democracy to be formally restored in 1991. Photo: Noor Alam/ Drik News
WE have celebrated the 40th anniversary of our independence. This was achieved through a long struggle and a liberation war in which countless lives were sacrificed. What was achieved was the result of healthy and pro-people politics and dedicated political parties. Popular political parties had in the past drawn their strength from dedicated leaders and workers, whose sincerity and sacrifice had built up grassroots organisations.
Popular mass-based organisations empowered ordinary people which provided the strength to launch and sustain mass movements. The Constitution adopted in 1972, declared that power belongs to the people providing that power could be exercised in a working democracy through truly elected representatives at every level -- from the national Parliament to the union Parishad.
That basic goal of a working democracy has proved to be elusive as assassinations and coups have assailed the Constitution. Political parties began to reflect the changing notion of politics. Parties began to be created from the top. Patronage and corruption became means of mustering support. The united popular movement of the 80s had sought to restore democratic practices and values. The success of that movement made it possible for parliamentary democracy to be formally restored in 1991.
Despite the constitutional movement having re-established formal parliamentary democracy, its proper functioning was obstructed by the legacy of the previous decades. The pattern of controlling the party and also the state through concentration of power at the top, using money, muscle and manipulation became the principal cause for a dysfunctional democracy.
The politics of confrontation and patronage which is contradictory to the norms of multi-party democracy is responsible for this. The past four decades show how people continue to struggle relentlessly but are deprived of the fruits of their struggle.
The result of such concentration of power at the top has resulted in the electoral process being severely damaged. Since the revival of parliamentary democracy in 1991 four general elections have been held (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2008). It had been hoped that competitive multi-party politics would give people the opportunity to choose honest and able representatives through free and fair elections. This expectation remains unfulfilled.
Laws intended to sustain a level playing field have been violated with impunity. There have been continuing and increasing violations on limits on election expenses. For a constituency in national elections the limit in 1991 of Tk. 300,000 has been raised to Tk. 15,00,000. Now the Election has proposed that the limit be raised to Tk. 25,00,000.
It is an un-controverter fact that the actual expenses in elections in 2008 in a national constituency and other large urban constituencies was in multiples of crores (tens of millions). Even in small rural constituencies the average expenditure has been in the range of Tk. 1 crore or more.
This created an unfair advantage for any party which once was able to form a government since it could use its position to collect funds through resort to patronage. Nominations were given against payment of large sums, thus excluding deserving candidates, who could not “buy” nominations.
Parties failed to comply with the obligation to submit financial statements disclosing their income, and also to not have student organisations, directly affiliated and controlled by them.
Needless to say such organisations are not permitted by law to maintain armed cadres, to intimidate voters, or to gain “hegemony” over the campus in major public universities and colleges.
In election after election people have witnessed how ruling coteries which control political parties from the top have prevented voters at the grassroots from being empowered. Vast resources, the fruits of corruption, are controlled by past and present ruling coteries. They pay lip service to democracy and to the Constitution, but contrive to concentrate power at the apex of the party and function as authoritarian organisations.
Electoral laws are designed to restrict the rights of voters and independent candidates by provisions such as requiring a person to be a member of a political party for three years before seeking election, for individual candidates to have support of at least one percent of the electorate, or for parties to contest at the national level to satisfy various requirements.
The constitutionality of some of these provisions is currently under challenge.
The electoral process is used as a means for the ruling coterie to raise false hopes that through “elections” people can really expect to participate in a working democracy in which we have a “government of the people, by the people for the people.”
Instead after four decades, we see what we have got at the end of an election is a government “of the ruling “coterie,” by the “coterie” and for the “coterie.” As Professor Stiglitz has written about another political system: the government is of the one per cent, by the one percent and for the one percent of the people.
As a consequence we have witnessed the weakening of democratic institutions. We had hoped for a parliament where peoples' voices would be heard, their problems would be discussed and polices and strategies adopted to satisfy their needs. Parliament, however, has become dysfunctional.
Voices of the people are not heard since members of Parliament who are expected to articulate the people's expectation are found to be silent or to become party loyalists who blindly approve what the ruling coterie says or does. The parties no longer represent the people at the grassroots but are manipulated from the top through money, patronage and manipulation of power.
Time has come if we are to be true to the constitution, which was entrusted to us by our martyrs and by leaders who gave their lives so that the people could truly govern themselves in a democratic state for us to unite and assert our rights. The capture of the party and the state by a ruling coterie is at the root of the failure to have a working democracy.
The abuse of state power is the result. Concentration of power combined with promotion of divisive politics has prevented effective functioning of the Constitution and the exercise of checks and balance as designed by the Constitution. Accountability has become illusory as parliament members are reduced to being silent spectators or uncritical loyalists.
Executive power under a constitution must be exercised for the public good and not for personal gain or to realise narrow partisan interests. In order to ensure this there has to be strict compliance with constitutional provisions requiring neutrality of public servants. Checks and balances must be exercised by effective vigilance of parliamentary committees.
The independence of the judiciary and the rule of law require that the law is impartially and effectively enforced. It is undermined when appointments and promotion on strictly objective grounds of merit and capability and not on narrow partisan considerations. Our institutions thus continue to be damaged.
The challenge which we face is how to bring about the changes that the pro-liberation forces had promised in December 2008. Commitments for good governance, effective functioning of parliament and local institutions, democratisation within political parties remain unfulfilled.
Laws need to be enacted, which set out qualifications and a fair transparent procedure to ensure appointments based on merit, impartiality of state institutions, in particular the judiciary, the election commission, and the public service commission.
For a working democracy, we must promote the proper functioning of democratic institutions by respecting and nurturing democratic values and practices, and thus sustaining a democratic culture. Tolerance, mutual respect for each others' rights must be promoted. We must engage in serious discussion and dialogue so that confrontation may yield to accommodation and consensus.
Today the majority of our population is below 35 years of age. They have the energy and the talent to build a prosperous future. What stands in the way are barriers created by the absence of a truly working democracy? The urgent need, therefore, is for us to strive to achieve national unity in order to bring about electoral reforms to ensure that people can have a real choice to elect their representatives.
Changes are needed in provisions of the electoral laws, which ruling parties are inclined to introduce for self-serving reasons. These include restrictions such as on nomination of persons who have not been members of a party for three years or disqualification of a person from seeking election if he or she has sought and failed to obtain a party nomination.
Also needed are measures to ensure compliance with requirements such as limits on election expenses, filing of financial statements of income including source of income of parties and candidates, and a nomination process for candidates which requires effective local consultation and is free from corruption.
Such changes would aim to free the electoral process from the impact of black money, muscle, partisan manipulation and abuse of state power. A national consensus calls for elections being conducted by a truly neutral election commission supported by a non-partisan government. This consensus continues to gain strength and support from all sections of the people, who aspire for a truly working democracy.
The write is Advocate, Supreme Court, Politician and a Former Foriegn Minister.
Comments