“In a democracy, the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme” -- Aristotle
An observer of democracy as it has unfolded in Bangladesh, may, for good reason, raise questions about the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher. Maybe his heart was full of goodness, but he forgot the goons of Machiavelli and/or Kautilya.
Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States and a consummate democrat, was rather pragmatic when he voiced his frustration. Jefferson said: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
And that’s where the constitution and the judiciary come in to rescue and safe-guard the rights of the minority, thus giving a meaning to the affirmation of Abraham Lincoln: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.”
Abe Lincoln was a wily man, but he never lost sight of democratic equality even in the darkest days of his administration. Can we say the same of our leaders? When the going got tough, the first elected leader of our nascent nation decided to compromise democracy in favour of one-party rule.
A blood-bath followed, wherein Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and hundreds of others including politicians and military personnel had to lay their lives before democracy was restored by a stone-faced ambitious general (Ziaur Rahman), whose foot-prints were awash with non-kosher happenings. Keeping himself personally honest, he paved the path-to-politics with money and treachery.
He, indeed, was a force of nature only to be perished by another natural happening; he too was slain by his own military. Karma perhaps. One should never let the military taste the power of absolute monarchy.
And then it was the still-alive-chameleon general, whose staying power, I bet, shall survive his own demise.
And this brings us to present-day Bangladesh. And the story keeps unfolding …
Both of the ladies were anointed to head their parties on the hilt of tragic family misfortune. Both of them are products of one-man-cults and have steered the politics into a perilous battle of clans -- the Sheihks and the Rahmans. To be fair, yes -- in their early years they worked hand-in-hand and co-operated as comrades, for the good of the country. They fought together to kill the dictatorship of Ershad. But at the same time, both of them leaned on gaudy politics and, at times, showed evil inclinations towards monkish versions of politics, thus rehabilitating and rejuvenating the defeated forces of 1971.
The best of their accomplishments came when they showed their pragmatic side by innovating an incredibly suitable system -- the erstwhile care-taker government (CTG) that is being emulated in other countries with similar a political fabric.
The first few five-year terms went well. However, the political banditry that was earnestly cultured by Ziaur Rahman and nurtured faithfully by Ershad, had developed stout roots by then, and taken a life of its own. Haowa Bhabon and its likes flourished. Being convinced of a one-term nature of political fortune, they began to nibble at the basis of the CTG system.
The ensuing melee lead to the two-year-stint of a strange military-backed civilian CTG of 2007-2009. For right or wrong reasons, politicians of the highest order suffered the brunt. “Never again,” said the post-1/11 prime minister of Bangladesh. She is a determined lady of exceptional style, and voila … the CTG system was gone with the wind. Aspiration for pre-election fairness, by now, has retired to its eternal repose.
Well, it was a great system, but was it good for the country? Nope -- we kept on voting for the same politicians, albeit of different stripes. I have no intention of belittling Ravana, but the age-old adage comes handy: “Whoever goes to Lanka, morphs into Ravana.”
