“It seems like it's déjà vu all over again,” is a famously mangled expression attributed to US baseball legend Yogi Berra. It is often cited by writers to describe something that had happened before for fun, instead of saying just déjà vu.
The just concluded “elections” to zilla parishad are perhaps a good occasion to remember and cite Yogi Berra quotation that brings back the memories of basic democracy ushered in by Ayub Khan in Pakistan in the sixties. This is “déjà vu all over again.”
When Ayub Khan introduced basic democracy after trashing a truly democratic constitution through martial law, he had only one objective: To institute a system that could be guided at the will of the rulers.
Ayub Khan stated that the system suited the “genius” of the people of Pakistan because he did not believe that the directly elected parliamentary system was suitable for the country. Instead, he introduced basic democracy, envisaged as five-tiered institutions starting from the bottom at union level and ending at the centre with thanas, districts, and provinces in between.
The only direct election would be at the union level, members of next levels would be chairmen of the institutions immediately below them (eg members of thana council would be chairmen of union councils, members of district council would be chairmen of thana councils, and so on).
In reality, however, the institutions above district level were never formed. The memberships of thana and district councils were also half filled with government officials.
The real purpose of basic democracy would be revealed, however, in the 1962 constitution introduced by Ayub Khan. Under the 1962 constitution, the democrats elected at union level formed an electoral college to elect the president, the National Assembly, and the provincial assemblies.
Since then, this electoral college of basic democrats became the darling of the regime who formed the core group of support for the government and its rulers. The lofty ideals of grass-root democracy with a coterie of supporters did not last long.
The system collapsed with the fall of Ayub Khan in 1969 after mass upheaval all over Pakistan. The only beneficiaries of the system were big landlords, industrialists, and the civil service whose powers were greatly augmented in that period.
One of the major objectives of the liberation struggle for Bangladesh, besides getting rid of Pakistan junta, was re-establishing democracy in the country. This would be a democracy that would enable every citizen of the country to participate in their choice of representatives, local or national.
The government will not only foster democracy, but also ensure that people take part in this exercise without fear or coercion. But 45 years after our struggle to re-establish democracy, we still find ourselves to be chasing that lofty objective.
On paper we have no lack of will to establish democratically elected institutions and our parliament, local government institutions, and election commission are good examples. On theory, we have an elected parliament, and elected councils at union, zilla, and corporation levels.
But were all members of these bodies elected by people’s choice alone? One third of the current members of the parliament were elected unopposed not just because the main opposition refrained from participation, but because a large number of potential contestants doubted the integrity of the system and did not want to participate.
The elections to the upazillas were seriously maneuvered to the extent that contests were abandoned half way by opposition parties leaving the elections open for people to get elected unopposed. The elections to scores of urban bodies were also not untainted either. And now comes election to zilla parishads.
From the very beginning, legitimate doubts have been expressed about the method of indirect elections to such an important tier of local government which traditionally had wielded considerable prestige and influence in a district. From colonial days, this institution referred to as district board (later district council) had attracted locally important political leaders, and the institution itself had made itself known for sponsoring and maintaining a substantial amount of local development work. District board chairman and members had had considerable prestige and they comprised elites of the district drawn from professions, business, and landed gentry.
After an interregnum of the district boards being run by deputy commissioners/district magistrates in Pakistan period as chairmen without any elected body, the district boards were changed to district councils under the basic democracy system.
District council was constituted with official members and nominated members, half of the members of district council were elected by the chairman of union parishad. The government appointed the remaining half.
The elections for zilla parishad, like the other elections before, will now be part of a trend that we are witnessing that sets a challenge to establishing a truly democratic country that we had hoped for
The deputy commissioner of the district became the ex-officio chairman of the district council. The functions of district council included construction and maintenance of roads, and bridges, building hospitals dispensaries, schools and educational institutions, health facilities and sanitation, tube well for drinking water, rest house, and coordination of activities of union parishads within the district.
Revenues of the district council partly came from leasing of council-owned market places, water bodies, and ferry ghats. But the bulk of the development budget came from government grants.
The district councils continued to be managed by deputy commissioners for a long time even after the demise of basic democracy and Pakistan without an elected body. Much of the status quo was due to the inability of the new government to introduce new rules and acts for local government for thanas and districts.
Although a new local government for the thanas, after their conversion into upazillas, was introduced under President Ershad, the subsequent government suspended the system. The system was revived with some changes in 1999 by another government. This was followed by the Zilla Parishad Act of 2000 that gave promise of an elected body for the districts, something that would not be implemented for next 16 years.
The much awaited zilla parishad chairman elections were held last December but with a significant absence of direct participation of the voters that the act had originally assured. Instead of direct elections, an electoral college consisting of upazilla/union chairmen, and mayors of corporations was formed by an amendment to the act which would vote for a 21 member council, including a chairman for each parishad.
The elections were again marred by non-participation by main opposition BNP on grounds of anticipated unfairness and malpractices in elections. The results so far have been that many chairmen have been elected unopposed (as in the case of 2014 parliamentary elections). The final tally would definitely favour the ruling party because of indirect elections as well as non-participation by the main opposition.
But more importantly, these indirect elections will further reinforce the image of a non-participatory democracy that the country seems to be practicing now. The elections for zilla parishad, like the other elections before, will now be part of a trend that we are witnessing that sets a challenge to establishing a truly democratic country that we had hoped for.
Going forward, we can only hope that the “elected” office-holders will try to establish an institution that can serve people and their aspirations instead of themselves, however imperfect way attained the office.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the USA.
