Reactions came from some readers of the DT about this scribe’s previous writings. They said that democratic values and real governance could not be expected from the parties in Bangladesh, as they themselves were not democratic.
Yes, democracy is having a rough ride here in Bangladesh as the parties, who are to shape it, made the system difficult on various fronts over the decades. They have miserably failed to create a democratic ethos in society, or they deliberately did it.
The trust in the politics in democracy was first affected when the government of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman went for a one-party rule (whatever the compulsion may have been at the time). The trust in democracy suffered the biggest blow in 1975, when Bangabandhu was killed, along with his family members. Bangladesh not only lost the lane of democracy, but also the values of secularism, non-communalism, and liberalism.
From 1975 till 1991, Bangladesh was virtually under military rule, although several parliamentary elections were held during this period. The all-out movement forced General Ershad to step down in 1990, who was in power for nine long years.
In 1991, Begum Khaleda Zia’s BNP came to power in an election held under a caretaker administration. The election was dubbed free and fair across the world. The trust lasted for a few months as the ruling BNP was bitterly accused by the opposition of handling a by-election (Magura) with a serious autocratic attitude to retain the seat within the treasury bench in the house. Since then, the two major parties only nurtured mistrust.
Political leaders here usually say that democracy will be the political order for Bangladesh. But the political parties themselves are far away from democracy. The degree of internal democracy of the political parties in Bangladesh is weak.
There are many reasons, including weak organisations, strong centralisation, and prevalent informal decision-making processes controlled by a limited number of party elites (truly by party chiefs). And the main three parties – BNP, Awami League, and Jatiya Party, are dynastic parties. This has important implications regarding the prospects of democratising party politics and consolidating democracy in Bangladesh.
Everyone says democracy returned after nine years of struggle against the autocratic regime of Ershad in 1990. But Bangladesh had to accept change through violent means. Every five years, the country experienced violent and destructive movements. And this time, the ruling party abolished the caretaker system, which was achieved through huge sacrifice.
At present, the situation is very critical, as the nation is facing an all-out extremist threat. The South Asian region faced so-called jihadis fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but the Bangladeshis so far voted only for the moderates. This is the democratic culture of this nation – a valuable asset that is now under threat.
Bangladesh’s political culture kept no room to assess the quality of the political parties, along with a number of indicators. The parties here do not have any obligation to make their accounts public, and political party funds and funding remains a mystery.
The quality and extent of internal democracy, as said earlier, are never discussed. There is room to analyse the procedures for the election of party leadership (party president, front leaders, election of candidates, and management) and the extent to which the parties are otherwise responsive and representative.
Do the general people have any idea about the organisational complexity and diversity, geographical spread, formal rules and political programs, membership, and resources of the parties? No. Not at all. The parties in Bangladesh are the most non-transparent entities. There is also the question of the parties’ ability to aggregate and articulate collective social preferences, and to transform these into practical policies, and to mobilise electoral support for their programs and candidates.
Against this backdrop, the educated youths can think of evolving realistic policies by utilising the knowledge, talent, and expertise of the people that is ignored by political traditionalists, who rely mainly on their old cronies, having limited perception and feudal concepts.
The need of the time is to develop a consortium of leadership, robust enough to develop policies, so that a more dynamic force can come near the politics. In fact, the bitterness showed by the parties in power and opposition has created a venue for eradicating corruption and poverty-based politics. The curse of corruption made our entire national system ineffective. No one is sure whether a third force in politics will free the society from the oppressive grip of institutionalised corruption, and prove itself as an alternative to the two parties who have lost their flair.
People want change in traditional politics. An equitable and just social order is sought, which the new political leadership can deliver. This is not an easy task, as it would result in a grim struggle against the powerful elite, who dominate politics and power.