Creating a democratic culture is the key to sustaining a democratic state. However, a democratic culture is not possible without a broad consensus among politicians, intellectuals, and other stakeholders -- the ultimate stakeholders being the people.
Consensus-building in politics influences and inspires the people. That helps create a national mindset encouraging people’s participation in preserving, protecting, and defending the republic.
Such a consensus is decisive, especially during a nation’s formative period -- right after a revolutionary war, civil war, or nationwide insurgency. The purpose of a consensus-building mechanism is not to dissolve differences, but to find commonality among the fundamental issues and principles of governance.
Unfortunately, there is no consensus among Bangladesh's political parties and other stakeholders in this rare historic moment.
The lesson from the past is that if a major political party wants to rule without a sound system, including proper checks and balances and vocal opposition and critics, the party will become self-destructive. We are all too familiar with this process.
When a political party crushes or marginalizes opposition and critics, it creates an inviting environment for its party officials and members to become corrupt, abusive of power, and subversive of the rule of law. This dysfunctional modus operandi exponentially increases with time when the party loses the people's trust and confidence, and public discontent also increases exponentially. An uprising or revolution becomes inevitable.
History is littered with such stories of failures. However, when a group or a leader becomes too ambitious and remains short-sighted and self-centred, they refuse to learn from the past. The circumstances help them become addicted and delusional, and they somehow excuse themselves with the pretext of exceptionalism.
We in Bangladesh should know all too well about this scenario. Hopefully, we will learn the lessons this time, and our leaders will learn from others’ failures to avoid their own.
There is a win-win alternative for all, if common sense prevails
This writing attempts to give glimpses of history that expose a recipe that, in the long run, makes everyone a winner, including the foreign power that preys on a developing and weak country like Bangladesh.
The recipe is simple and time-tested: For a political party, the formula is to earn the trust and confidence of the people of a country, it is the most precious political capital and a decisive force. For a foreign power, it is the least expensive, but most profitable in the long run to become a beneficial ally of the people and not of a puppet regime.
Tunisia was saved from disaster by consensus-building in 2011
In 2011, the Jasmine Revolution ousted the 23-year dictator Ben Ali’s regime. There was a power vacuum, and the country descended into chaos, conflicts, and possibly a civil war as the Islamists and secular groups supported by powerful labour and trade unions came in a head-to-head confrontation.
The Islamist party, Ennahda, the largest and most popular political party in Tunisia, was expected to get over 80% of the parliamentary seats if an election were to take place using the conventional method, the “First-past-the-post.”
Secular parties threatened to boycott elections and create turmoil in the country unless Ennahda accepted the pure proportional representation (PR) electoral system, in which the party’s grip on Parliament would be substantially reduced, enhancing secular parties’ role in politics and governance.
The country was saved from the impending disaster by a consensus-building mechanism arranged by the National Dialogue Quartet, a civil society alliance that organized the Ben Achour Commission in which representatives of all the stakeholders in the country -- all the political party leaders, members of civil society, representatives of labour and trade unions, and various NGOs, etc -- all came together.
All these diverse groups engaged in fierce debate and discussions for about four months. The commission then issued a resolution on the Constitution's basic structure or the republic's foundation consisting of about seven or eight fundamental points.
Finally, 151 out of the 155 members of the commission signed the landmark agreement.
This broad consensus about the basic features of a democratic system gained people’s trust. It gave hope and confidence to the once polarized nation to integrate and build their country and a better future together.
According to many experts, the Ben Achour Commission’s fantastic success in consensus-building helped create one of the most crafted transitions from an autocratic to a democratic system in modern history in a relatively short period. (See my article in the Daily Star in 2016)
The most unfortunate fact is that the powerful authoritarian regimes, rich monarchies, and Israel, all despise democracy taking root in the region. They all have one common interest: To destroy any nascent democracy there.
Since the Arab Spring democratic movement in 2011, these powers have destroyed every possibility except Tunisia. They failed for 10 years because Tunisia developed a multi-party, inclusive, and cohesive political landscape of a level playing field with a fair chance for small and large political parties.
None of the parties in power broke their solemn commitment as they saw their future secured in democracy and not in autocracy. The regional powers blocked all financial help except Qatar. Then, a collaborator and his supporters sabotaged the system in 2021.
However, the institutions had become strong and resilient by this time, and the national consensus and democratic culture were vibrant. Fierce resistance has been growing against the perpetrators and their foreign masters to restore democracy in the nation.
Egypt undermined consensus-building and failed
Egypt's Arab Spring revolution ousted the Mubarak regime around the same time Tunisia ousted Ben Ali’s rule in 2011. However, Tunisia succeeded in becoming a functioning democracy, while Egypt failed.
The 2012 election did elect Mohammad Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) representative, as Egypt's first democratically elected President. MB undermined consensus-building with the secular and Christian minorities. Turmoil ensued.
Taking full advantage of the unrest and bloodshed, General Fattah al-Sisi orchestrated a coup and ended the nascent democracy, thanks to the full support of the powerful monarchies and Israel. (For more details)
Nepal’s consensus-building, cohesive politics, and diplomatic feat
Cohesive politics energizes and invigorates governance and protects the national interest from the grip of neocolonial predatory forces.
Nepal, our neighbouring country, shows how a tiny landlocked country sandwiched between two rival global giants -- India and China -- can still protect its national interest and keep its relationship with both powers in balance. The enabling factor to this enormous diplomatic feat is its cohesive politics and a multiparty system after 2006.
Both these global powers have been relentlessly trying to establish a hegemonic grip on this country for a long time. Before 2006, Nepal was in a precarious situation.
There was a civil war between the Monarchy’s forces and the largest and militarily most powerful Mao Party. The civil war continued for ten years (1996-2006) as long as the Mao Party wanted to establish a one-party rule after defeating the monarchy.
Then wisdom prevailed in the Mao leadership. Everything changed the day the Mao Party leaders decided to establish a multi-party, inclusive, and cohesive political system in Nepal.
Soon after Mao and all other parties declared unity, the monarchy fell, and the civil war ended in 2006. A dynamic and promising journey started in which both small and large parties demonstrated vigour and commitment as they all saw their secured future in democracy and not as a puppet government of a global giant.
The 2017 election produced a setback. After a difficult process, Nepal is trying to get back on track and assert itself as a non-aligned country.
The tale of two revolutions
The paramount role of cohesive politics based on consensus-building in good governance is timeless, as it complies with core human values and the dictates of “common sense.”
The American Revolution, which began in 1776, united 13 diverse states to work together to oust British colonial rule. After that, 49 leaders from these states, known as the “founding fathers,” spent 11 long years debating and discussing to reach a consensus in framing the Constitution and setting timeless traditions in motion.
This consensus during the “primordial period” of the nation played a paramount role in integrating the nation and saving the first democracy in modern times, which still continues two and a half centuries later.
However, the French Revolution in 1789, inspired by the success of the American Revolution, had a different fate. Without consensus among the rival groups, the “might is the right” prevailed, anarchy and tyranny ruled, and bloodshed and turmoil occurred to destroy the formative period.
Finally, Napoleon Bonaparte took the country back into a monarchy by 1799.
Urging political parties
Bangladesh requires radical changes to overcome political, social, and economic crises at this critical juncture.
These essential transformations cannot be realized without fostering consensus among political leaders, political parties, and other relevant stakeholders.
Fundamental reforms and paradigm shifts that are urgently needed cannot be achieved by any single ruling political party, as the party’s interests are likely to conflict with such changes. History bears witness to this truth.
Ruby Amatulla is Executive Director of Muslims for Peace, Justice and Progressive and Women for Good Governance.
