Published in The Daily Star on Saturday, 26 April 2014.
Eminent Political Scientist Professor Rounaq Jahan talks to Shamsuddoza Sajen of The Daily Star on various issue surrounding the state of democracy in Bangladesh and the possible solutions
The Daily Star (TDS): In light of January 5 elections and recently concluded UZ elections what do you think about the present status of our democratic polity?
Rounaq Jahan (RJ): Since 1991, we have been able to meet the bare minimum qualities of being categorised as a democracy as we were able to organise four free, fair and credible parliamentary elections in 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2008. These four elections, organised by non-party caretaker government (CGT), witnessed relatively peaceful transfers of power between the two major political parties, the Awami League (AL) and the BNP. However, our electoral democracy had many deficits. Rule of law was weak. We consistently scored low in several other indicators such as civil and political rights and control of corruption, which are regularly used by international organisations to assess the quality of democracy. But after the January 5 parliamentary elections and the recent upazila elections our claim to being classified even as an “electoral” democracy would be questioned by international organisations as these elections were flawed and not credible. What is unfortunate is that we have now seen a regression in our move towards institutionalising democracy. The main opposition, the BNP-led alliance boycotted the January 5 elections. In 153 constituencies, that is the majority of parliamentary seats, no electoral contestation took place so that the MPs were elected without the benefit of a single vote being cast in their favour. In the rest of the constituencies, where contestations took place, voter turnout was very poor. A peculiar political opposition was engineered who chose to be both with the government and also in the opposition. Following a one-sided election, we witnessed highly contested upazila elections but these were mired in violence and other gross violations of electoral rules and norms. In the last two decades we had been making slow progress in transcending these kinds of gross electoral misdeeds. The upazila elections have tarnished the image of the Election Commission (EC). People are questioning the capacity of the EC to organise free and fair elections. We now face an uphill task in organising future elections in the country.
TDS: Why does Bangladesh fail to continue a smooth democratic journey?
RJ: If we focus on only elections and not pay attention to other qualities of democracy then we will continue to falter in our democratic journey. Some of the qualities of democracy such as regular credible elections, fundamental freedoms, rule of law, transparency and accountability, all need to go hand in hand. If there is some deficit in one of them it will have a negative consequence on the progress of others. For example, if rule of law, civil and political rights or accountability remain compromised we will not be able to sustain regular credible elections. Unfortunately, since 1991 our two major political parties have been pre-occupied mainly with elections. They have not done much to improve the other qualities of democracy. Indeed, when in power, they have behaved in an undemocratic way. They have been intolerant and oppressed the opposition. They have used state agencies and state resources to unfairly reward their own supporters and punish the opposition. This culture of “winner takes all” made our political contestations highly confrontational, which often turned violent.
If we compare Bangladesh with our neighbour India we find that Indian politics is also dominated by black money, muscle power and so on. But India has been able to institutionalise the organisation of regular credible elections. The Election Commission (EC) in India is independent and it can enforce its authority over the contesting parties including the ruling party. There is an agreement amongst all political parties about the basic rules of the electoral game. The losing parties in India never question the authenticity of the election results or the independence of the EC. Unfortunately in Bangladesh, we have not been able to establish such an agreement amongst the parties. The two main political parties have refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue to resolve their differences about how to organise free and fair elections. As a result, we have not been able to cross even the first hurdle of institutionalising democracy, that is agreement amongst all contesting parties about the ground rules of organising elections. This has led to repeated breakdowns in the continuity of our democratic political process.
TDS: We see predominance of money and muscle in politics. Most of the politicians are from business background or enter business after being elected into the office.
RJ: One should not just blame the business background of MPs for our democracy deficits. There is nothing wrong if business people enter politics. What is wrong is when these people use the influence of their political office to enhance their business fortunes. We should also keep in mind that it is our political leaders who often invite business people to get into politics. In the 1960s and 1970s politicians came mostly from the legal profession. But this has changed over the years. At present, businessmen are predominant in numbers and influence. It is because now you need huge amounts of money for election campaigns and party funding. We need to have rules in place which will require business persons to sever connections with their own business once they are elected to parliament or became members of the cabinet. In the USA and other mature Western democracies there are rules and laws to prevent conflict of interest between public service and private profit making activities. We will need to make and enforce laws to break the unethical and undemocratic linkages between money, muscle power and politics.
TDS: Globally, democracy is suffering a setback. According to many experts, democracy is failing to deliver. What do you think? Do you find any internal logic between our local situation and the global reality?
RJ: Democracy everywhere is in crisis. Even in Western liberal democracies, we witness dominance of money in electoral politics. Negative campaigns and political ‘spin’ are rampant in the political process. Economic inequalities are growing in these countries. Political power in concentrated in the hands of a relatively small wealthy elite. Nordic countries are doing somewhat better as they have more participatory politics and greater social and economic equality.
However, despite many problems, the great attraction of democracy is that it allows you freedom of expression. If you do not like something you are free to say so and will not be punished or silenced. From that point of view, though democracy has a lot of problems, we certainly do not want to abandon it. We want to work on its problems in order to improve it.
TDS: In the present situation, do you see light at the end of the tunnel?
RJ: I am always optimistic. I have seen our people overcome many crises and win against heavy odds. For example, in 1971 nobody thought that we would be able to attain independence so quickly. Similarly, we were able to overthrow military rule within 15 years. This time our struggle is to democratise our electoral democracy. I am confident we will be able to get over our temporary setbacks. We are a relatively homogenous country and this is our great strength. We can easily mobilise people around issues or tackle a crisis, whether it is natural or manmade.
People of this country want a change from the current situation. They do not want a continuation of the politics of exclusion and confrontation. I am confident that when citizens will be able to send a strong message to the political players that they want a peaceful resolution of all political conflicts through discussion and dialogue and not through violence, we will be able to usher in a more meaningful democratic system.