There comes a time in the life cycle of individuals, social and political bodies, which calls for introspection and self-criticism. The state of Bangladesh today is indeed in that predicament. After forty-three years of independent existence it is torn with two fundamental questions, a) finding a permanent system for holding elections; b) the space and role of religion within the political domain.
I would strongly argue that the failure of the political leadership to evolve and institutionalise democracy and supportive institutions has brought us where we are today. Bangladesh’s electoral democracy since 1991 has been devoid of democratic practices and culture. Personality cult was and is the order of the day.
So where did we fail? Interestingly I have repeatedly heard political analysts defend the present system along with its varied forms of violence on the ground that western democracies too had to go through violent phases before democracy got “stabilised” in those countries. My point of departure would be, it is not the same time period; globalisation despite its many limitations, has opened up several windows and resulted not only in death of distance but also time leaps. The case of Bangladesh is also different since we have gone through two very intense nationalist phases. First when we fought British colonialism and then the Pakistani state. 1971 was not limited to a nine months war; it was a people’s movement for liberation based on the demand for autonomy that spanned over a period of over two decades. It began with the demand for cultural autonomy in 1948 and later added economic and political autonomy as its major demands. In its essence it was supposed to be liberal and liberating. For me, Ekatturer Chetona, (spirit of 71) implies pluralism as opposed to homogenization, decentralization as opposed to centralization, and indeed not using religion as a tool of hegemony.
Movements indeed are different from state building. The political leadership, with all its good intent, has failed to transform the ideals of 71 into a reality. The state took a conservative turn. The constitution that was adopted was embedded with ideals that reflected the hegemony of the Bengali nation.
Nationalism was defined as Bengali nationalism. The latter took its roots from Bengali language and culture. Despite its political connotations, one needs to remember here that Bengali is an ethnic and cultural category, who constitute the majority of the population in Bangladesh.
This homogenization was against the spirit of 71; cultural autonomy has been a founding plank of the autonomy movement of the Bengalis. Yet the new state turned itself into an imagined reality of the Bengalis only. Consequently Bangladesh faced an armed insurgency in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), located in the southeast of Bangladesh for over two decades. This region is home to eleven ethnic communities.
One indeed may question the exigency for the insertion of this principle, since nationalism is essentially hegemonic and exclusionary; and the Bengalis constituted the overwhelming majority. Indeed Bengali nationalism was the soul and spirit of the liberation movement; but having attained independence one needed to move towards a more composite form of nationalism that could have accommodated the different ethnic communities in Bangladesh.
The insertion of Bangladeshi nationalism later by the BNP regime did not do away with Bengali hegemony, instead religion, that too Islam, the religion of the majority, was added as an element of nationalism. The state right from its inception took a turn towards the majority, and the process continues. Pluralism, an essential element of democracy, a critical grain of 71 was sacrificed. As politics took several twists and turns, the political leadership also turned secularism into a contested term. The first constitution had secularism as one of the state principles. In order to implement the above Article 12 of the constitution stated: The principle of secularism shall be realized by the elimination of communalism in all forms; the granting by the state of political status in favour of any religion; the abuse of religion for political purposes; any discrimination against, or persecution of persons practicing a particular religion.
Article 38 para 2 of the constitution further stated: No person shall have the right to form or be a member or otherwise take part in the activities of, any communal or other association or union, which in the name or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues a political purpose. The BNP regime had dropped secularism from the constitution. Later HM Ershad made Islam the state religion. There was no popular demand for it. The military generals turned politicians had taken these measures for popular support, since Bangladesh is an overwhelmingly Bengali Muslim state. The two identities had existed side by side and indeed individuals do have multiple layers of identity.
Secularism translated into Bengali as dhormoniropekkhota came to be interpreted as dhormobipokkhota or anti religion by a section of political leaders who used religion to gain political support. Bangladesh politics has become a hotbed where terminologies are used at the level of rhetoric for narrow political ends without going into the politics and deeper understanding of the terminologies.
Post-71 Bangladesh failed to make a distinction between being religious and communal. The political leadership continues to play the populist majoritarian card making compromises at each twist and turn for power. This has turned both religion and politics into a contested terrain, and the society is witnessing divides along pro-liberation, anti-liberation, religious ethnic and now atheist non-atheist lines. The divides can go on; but then where do we stand today? The major political parties project themselves as the true defenders of religion. The 15th amendment to the constitution did reinstate secularism as one of the state principles, but retained Islam as the state religion. Through this process we keep on orbiting within the vortex of religion, with the religious minorities feeling increasingly insecure. Religion keeps on reappearing as a political tool of hegemony. Apart from the broader framework within which politics is operating, one also observes extraordinary powers being concentrated within the institution of prime minister through the constitution.
The ministers serve at the pleasure of the prime minister and the prime minister may at any time request a minister to resign, and if such minister fails to comply with the request, may advise the president to terminate the appointment of such minister, (Article 58, clause 2).
Under the same article clause 4, if the prime minister resigns or ceases to hold office, each of the other ministers would also be deemed to have resigned from office.
The president (Article 48, clause3)in the exercise of all his functions, save only that of appointing the prime minister (clause 3, Article 56) and the Chief Justice (Article 95, clause 1) shall act in accordance with the advice of the prime minister. One may argue here that such concentration of power has made the position of prime minister a major contentious and obstructionist issue towards the resolution of an electoral mechanism. The rest of the cabinet becomes a mere puppet government. The president literally has no power at his disposal, yet the people expect him to exercise his powers as the guardian of the state. The political parties lack internal democracy. It is not surprising that we have been seeing the same faces at the helm of party leadership for almost four decades now. The political parties have turned into dynastic rules.
Lack of political reforms and democratisation within the parties have turned the parties into autocratic institutions, devoid of idealism or vision. Retaining and attaining power have become the sole objective of the major political parties.
Article 70, clause (b) of the constitution also makes internal democracy within political parties an impossibility. It clearly states that if a member of parliament votes against the party then he has to vacate his seat.
In other words, the “democratic” political parties are authoritarian bodies. The non democratic nature of political parties, lack of trust among the political leadership and above all politics devoid of idealism has stalled the state machinery today. It is no surprise then that after forty-three years of our existence we have failed to evolve a viable democratic system, which can ensure us social justice, give guarantee of a normal life and death; instead of standing on the ashes of charred bodies, we the citizens ought to demand a return to the values that we had fought for, which the political leadership has charred so brutally in their lust for power.
It is time for self-criticism, a dispassionate critique of our state, politics, the processes, cycles and systems that we as citizens are also responsible for evolving and changing. The change has to come from within, citizens power, social sovereignty must come to the fore.
