Political culture and its impact on governance

Enam A Chaudhury
...................................................

Photo: Star

It is often said that a nation gets the government it deserves. It may not be always true because of the presence of exogenous forces and external factors, like imperial occupation or machination and intervention of interested powerful countries. But generally speaking, the will of the people, shaped greatly by their political culture, exerts decisive influence on the nature of governance.

If we analyse the main traits of our political culture, we definitely see emphatic presence of willingness to adhere to democratic principles. But it is also true that the democratic process in our country has suffered so many set-backs, and countries to be under threat. Moreover, even under rule of democratically elected governments authoritarian practices have prevailed. There have been military interventions, coups and conspiracies, autocratic governments, -- there have been sales of unelected groups of individuals, some of whom were even disqualified -- selected through ways and means neither transparent nor unquestionable.

Two parts of erstwhile British India, Pakistan and Bharat (India) started off as independent countries. However, almost within a decade, the countries drifted apart, both politically and administratively. Martial Law was imposed in Pakistan, 303 senior civil offices of the government were summarily and arbitrarily dismissed in violation of established service rules, norms, and practice. Human rights were curbed and different types of authoritative controls were imposed. Whereas in India, in spite of conflicts, communal disturbances and repression of human rights in areas like Kashmir and the North-East, democratic practice flourished, administrative structure and system were maintained, and deliberative consensus, rather than authoritative decisions became the trend-setter. I would like to think that the political culture, shaped by socio-religious-historical factors, was primarily responsible for this.

In Pakistan, and subsequently in Bangladesh, this trend has given birth to the practice of following the dictates of the authorities, however arbitrary those may be. "Pleasing the boss at any cost" or whoever matters; has become the Mantra of people in administration. The interest of the party in power has become the sole arbiter in decision-making in administration, which tries to secure this by following an unabashed principle of politicisation of administration.

In India, a deliberate and well-thought-out policy was adopted to keep administration free of political bias. INA members, who were actually deserters from the British Indian Army joining the fight for freeing India from British domination, were not even taken back to the defence services of free India. Naval officers, who mutinied in Bombay in 1946 against lthe British Raj actually suffered very heavily in their post independence service career. Even civil officials who had pro-independence leanings did not get better treatment as they were considered to have been indisciplined and insubordinate! Most of them were, however, compensated but outside the administrative structure. Partisanship and having political bias have been accepted as major disqualification for government officials in India, whereas in our context following the right party lines and closeness to people in power have become important factors in promotion and appointment in government service even in fields like education, medicine and judiciary. These trends have definitely adversely affected governance.

A big part of government official has started thinking of themselves not as servants of the Republic, but as servants of the political party in power. This hardly helps good governance.

In the policy making level, even high civil servants, without giving objective assessments and views now tend to agree into whatever a political minister says. In the field, the officials have to listen to MPs, dance in attendance when a political VIP like a minister visits an outlying area, and even occasionally arrange and attend political or politically-oriented meetings and assemblies. The local educational institutions are virtually taken over by the local government party MP, and the administrative wheel moves as per his dictat. Development plans are expected to be made and trimmed as per needs of the party MP or high-ups.

These practices have demoralised administration, and government functionaries have lost their image of independence and objectivity.

Another factor in the political culture that has its impact on governance is the presence of elements of divisiveness of all types and brands. Fair deal does not, in that case remain as the goal in administration, rather parochialism, nepotism and favouritism take up the driving seat in administrative dealings. These may give rise to extremist ideas and terrorist activities, thereby thwarting order in society and good governance.

When self-interest or attainment of objective at any cost takes the decisive role in administrative action gross violation of human rights and even extra-judicial "cross-fire" killings take place. In such political culture, intolerance and unaccomodativeness percolate the echelons of administrative structure and vitiates day-to-day governance. The tragic take-over of the government on gunpoint on 1/11, and subsequent efforts to thwart democratic and political developments, the grenade -- killings and the bomb-blasts are all outcome of a political culture that throws aboard even the minimum traits of good governance.

There cannot be any denial of the fact that the army installed and controlled government during the caretaker regime grossly violated human rights, violated constitutional provisions and guarantees, sent political leaders, and even their young children behind the prison-bar on flimsy unacceptable pretexts, inflicted inhuman tortures on respectable people in custody -- even national leaders and extorted money illegally from businessmen and industrialists. The prevalent political or governmental culture was ruthless suppression, which the nation had to undergo during the emergency period.

Even with all these bitter experiences behind, we have now a dysfunctional parliament, deaths in custody like that of Barek, forcible SL occupation of students' halls and bloody students' confrontations, tender-rules violations and interventions, extortions and suppression of opponents. All these stand on the way of good governance -- indeed hinder the democratic process.

The political culture of utter selfishness -- which implies retaining all power and privileges by the ruling party and "the winner takes it all" attitude demolish the prospects of good governance. It has been always held that functional local government is a sine qua non for good governance and real grass-root development, but the Members of the Parliament refuse to share their power and privilege. As a result, even though almost a year has elapsed, the elected upazilla Chairmen are without any work, and there is almost no local council administration in Bangladesh now.

The culture of patrionisation, nepotism, and unbridled greed, inter-alia, results in a lack of transparency, dubious deals and corruption in administration. Recrimination and vengeance create violence. If abiding respect for rule of law, unflinching adherence to social and ethical norms, and a sense of tolerance are not there in the political culture, then what the results can be are amply indicated in the happenings of the day.

If we would like to bring in good governance in the country, the foremost thing that we have to do is to change the political culture. There should be no politicisation of administration, and the realisation should be there that it is only efficient non-partisan government servants, performing under rule of law, that can be the true agents of good governance. Voice of dissent should be heard. Tolerance and accommodativeness should be there as a normal phenomenon. In this country, it is big news when leaders of the two big parties meet accidentally and exchange pleasantries. Why should this be such an exceptional happening? Rather this, and much more, should be the common practice. Rule of law can only be established if the party that is in power ceases to overlook it's own wrong doings and refuses to patronise the perpetrators of crimes and violence, even if they are party workers, and discontinue causing harassment to opponents.

The opposition parties should play their constitutional role with a sense of responsibility, and they should be encouraged to do so. This would, of course, warrant a sea-change of the mind-set. There may be political differences, but the nation should be united in its fight against common enemies like poverty, ill-health, disaster and ignorance, and maintain national interest with a patriotic zeal.

The desired change in the political culture can only bring in good governance, and ensure that the tragedy of 1/11 will not recur.

.....................................................
The author is Retd. Secretary and Chairman, Privatisation Commission, Adviser to Chairperson, BNP.

© thedailystar.net, 2010. All Rights Reserved