Extra-mile the ruling party has to go

Dr. Syed Anwar Husain
..............................................................
How is a government constituted? Only the ruling party/parties (in case of a coalition or an alliance government) is in power? Then, what happens to the opposition in parliament the members of which are duly elected by the electorate? The members of parliament belonging to both the treasury and opposition are in parliament because they represent their electorates; and thus, they do not differ in their background.

They do, however, differ in their total numerical strength -- a difference that decides their respective position in and out of power. In the democratic parlance opposition, although at the periphery, may not be entirely out of power. They wield many leverages of power by becoming a strong and effective opposition:

In the context of Bangladesh, the politicians have so far demonstrated their firm commitment to the archaic political dictum that winner takes all as the winning party/parties constitute government. In such a case opposition loses all. There is nothing wrong in the winning party constituting government; but it is certainly politically wrong that the winner takes all and the loser loses all.

Consequently, government and opposition have been found to be unbridgeably distanced; although in a democratic system both are supposed to be the two sides of the same coin. This unbridgeable distance marks the entire tenure of a government and mars the functioning of government. The mode of governance thus ends up being a one -- party one -- certainly a travesty of the democratic system.

The present ninth parliament had a real auspicious beginning. The parliamentary committees were put in place in a remarkably short time; and in the unprecedented gesture the government was to put three opposition MPs at the head of three such committees. The parliamentary session was also off to a propitious start with the opposition MPs present. But later something did go awry as the opposition began clamouring for front seats; and, as days rolled on, the list of opposition demands and protestations got lengthened. The result was total face-off between the treasury and opposition benches, with the consequence of the opposition walking out of the floor of parliament, a phenomenon that has since been perpetuated as parliamentary boycott. The parliamentary practice allows occasional walks-out to protest highhandedness of the treasury bench, but not boycott for an indefinitely long period.

At least four results have been found to follow from this disquieting unparliamentary practice of parliamentary boycott. First, government and parliamentary debates become a one-sided show, something that is an anathema to democratic ethos and spirit. The government in power thus ends up being a parliamentary autocracy and sham democracy. Second, a shadow boxing ensues between government and opposition accusing each other of vitiating the parliamentary environment. The government rhetorics harp on its having done enough to make the parliamentary floor hospitable for opposition. On the other hand, opposition faults government on many counts for slamming the door of parliament in their face. Third, opposition leaves its allocated parliamentary floor space and takes refuge in street agitations as a strategy to retain its existence in politics. By doing so opposition forfeits its status as representatives of its electorate. MPs are elected to represent their electorate in parliament, not in the streets. Moreover, street agitations are never concerned with the constituency -- issues; but focussed on the political issues of opposition as an aggrieved faction of parliament. Fourth, at one stage of hibernation from the parliamentary realm opposition gives out a clarion call for toppling government, and starts countrywide movement to this end. Foreign embassies and donor agencies are also courted to lend their supportive ears to opposition claims and demands against the alleged government mischiefs.

These four are the contours of the political paradigm under which Bangladesh has hurtled towards democracy? Ironically, however, the boycotting MPs have, since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in the 1990s, been found to be quite punctilious in drawing salaries/allowances and using all perks and privileges. So our boycotting MPs get paid for a job they are found circumstantially not doing. So, what has happened to morality and conscience in our politics?

Again, it is not always that government and opposition remain in a state of face-off. Both have been found to make a common cause and taking up a common stance on questions of perks and privileges; and one such example is importing duty -- free cars for MPs. But such a convergence of outlook and interests never occur on questions of national interests. For instance, we have been disturbed by something like a polar difference of stance between the two sides on the outcome of prime minister's recent visit to India. We looked forward to an informed debate between the two sides and joining of their hands in maximising national gains vis-a-vis India; but we were frustrated. A politically divided nation does not really find itself in a strong negotiating position. The two main political parties cannot escape the responsibility for keeping the nation dangerously divided.

How does a democratic government function? On paper and in political rhetorics Bangladesh appears to be, in spirit and form, a Westminster model democracy. But rhetorics and reality, however, painfully mismatch with each other insofar as the democratic scenario in Bangladesh is concerned. Bangladesh as of now is far from being a democracy; and the Westminster model remains a far cry. Bangladesh may, however, qualify as a democratising country, and that too with a mixed and chequerred track-record.

While labelling Bangladesh as such, it should be borne in mind that the history of democracy across the world and over ages bears enough testimony to the fact that both as a system and mode of governance democracy defies quick and shoddy fixes. Democracy is a phenomenon, which is known for a long and sustained period of gestation. Bangladesh's democratic travel -- path is not long, but certainly not short; and during which there should have been by now at least some tangible gains but for the government -- opposition undemocratic interrelationship.

This lack of democracy in their mutual relationship is to be explained by some deficits in the role of both. Of course, common wisdom would burden government in power with a larger share of such a role for keeping opposition on a democratic track. But success of government's larger role is contingent upon reciprocating role of opposition; and democratic functioning of government. Opposition of government for the sake of opposition and raising a hue and cry on nationally or otherwise irrelevant issues by either government or opposition are not in keeping with democratic norms.

The Westminster model, as it functions in Britain, recognises opposition as a part of government. The government in power is called His/Her Majesty's Government; and the opposition His/Her Majesty's Opposition. Thus both government and opposition function as parts of the same entity. In such a system there are instances of occasional walks-out (very rare), but no boycott. Thus rhetorics aside, reality suggest how Bangladesh's democratic (?) practice is at variance with that of Westminster.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong in following a model; but have we lived up to the expected role in accomplishing this model? The answer is bound to be a big no, but the responsibility devolves squarely on the political leadership. In the division of such a negative responsibility the larger share, as mentioned earlier, goes to the governments that have been in power since independence, and specifically, since redemocratisation in the 1990s.

The list of theoretical and empirical democratic preconditions is fairly long. But the scope of this essay is limited in that it addresses only one empirical precondition relevant to Bangladesh, that is, government as a catalyser in democratisation by properly engaging opposition in the democratic functioning. It is also suggested in tandem that not only government but opposition as well, and even the entire citizenry have a role to play in this regard.

It is, however, conceded that a government being in power and at the helm of affairs makes it the primary role-player in inducting opposition in the governance process: But that this role has not been or could not be played as expected has been proved by the successive government-opposition stands-off and opposition boycotts of parliament. The phenomenon of parliamentary boycott is disturbing in that every government in its election manifesto has promised to make parliament the epicentre of politics and governance, but every government, including the present one, has failed abysmally to do so. Every government over the years irrespective of party stands accused of not having done sufficient to engage opposition in governance.

On the other hand, every opposition irrespective of party stands accused of boycotting parliament and not reciprocating government overtures. Consequently, governments since 1991, although, on the whole, fairly elected (despite claims to the contrary by the losing parties in every general election) have been half governments minus any opposition participation. Thus Bangladesh has over the last two decades performed either as a half democracy or sham democracy. This government-opposition face-off and the consequent half-parliament have remained the most intractable of the problems hindering progress towards democratisation.

The record of the present Grand Alliance Government in engaging the opposition has not been assuring. It has been in power for a little over a year with a real grand undertaking to bring about a change of fate for the populace. Such an undertaking means many things to many people. A certainly high blown verbiage this undertaking literally means qualitative change in everything that concerns us as citizens of Bangladesh -- the primary ones being politics and governance, for these are the two drivers of any qualitative change in a polity.

Unfortunate, as it is, nothing has changed in these two sectors over the last one year. As before, government and opposition remain distanced separated as they are by their party-centric (not nation-centric) political calculations. Despite hopeful beginning, the ninth parliament soon relapsed into its old syndrome of boycott by opposition. The government record of trying to keep the opposition to the parliamentary track is a mixed one. The government election pledge to offer one post of Deputy Speaker did not materialise for reasons shrouded in mystery. The impasse over the front row seat allocation for the their MPs left the opposition aggrieved.

Looked at objectively, the issue is entirely sentimental devoid of any political essence. Being a two-thirds majority the treasury bench would have lost nothing by allocating a few more front seats for the opposition; and such a gesture would have acted as a palliative for the wounded psyche of the losing party. On the other hand, it is clear that the opposition has certainly proved itself politically immature and highly sentimental in raising and naggingly sticking to this demand. After all, an MP is known by what and how well he speaks and performs on the floor of parliament; and not by where and in which row he/she sits. It is on record that as a young opposition MP Winston Churchill used to sit on the backbench of the House of Commons; but it was he who would steal the limelight by his eloquence based on his 'devastating intellect'. On the other hand, our Sangsad is conspicuous by the absence of either intellect or eloquence. Then why is this furor over sitting arrangement?

Sometime back we were heartened as the Prime Minister extended a warm invitation to the opposition to join parliamentary session and speak on any issue they would like. Thus she spoke like the Prime Minister of a nation, and not of party. But a few days later our hearts sank as we found her questioning the existence of a body in late Ziaur Rahman's grave on the floor of parliament. The inevitable happened; came the angry retort from the opposition, and thus widened the chasm between the two sides. Considering the political fall-out it was not expected of the prime minister to speak on such an irrelevant sentimental issue.

The list of such petty and ill-conceived/ill-advised gestures and overtures by the government driving the opposition farther and farther away is fairly long, and details of which are uncalled for the purpose of this essay. Because of many sky-high promises made in the election manifesto the government has literally served itself a tall order, and materialisation of which would need a right work environment. But such an environment would be jeopardised if the opposition were left in a state of high antagonism, which of course will not elevate the standing of the latter with the electorate either. Strategic placating of the opposition involving travelling extra-miles on the part of the government would serve both well as well as people of the country.
..................................................
Dr. Syed Anwar Husain is a Professor, Department of History, University of Dhaka.

© thedailystar.net, 2010. All Rights Reserved