With the furtherance of civilisation, we have developed numerous theories, systems, norms, and standards -- whenever we face a critical situation that needs our discretion, we tend to go back to check the theories and standards.
As a system, democracy is centuries old, dating back to 5th century Greece, where it was evolved as a concept or theory and got rich and implementable with the passage of time. However, theories get modified to make them more effective, more acceptable. Presently, democracy is the prevailing state-running system in the world, considered the most acceptable and appropriate.
Larry Jay Diamond is a leading American political sociologist who identified four key elements of democracy: A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, the protection of the human rights of all citizens, a rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
Obviously, it’s all about people, the citizens, rule of law, elections, participations, and so forth. To reap the benefits of democracy we must have a strong opposition party against the government to check the balance of power, and the duty of the opposition is not to oppose just because they are the opposition, but to criticise the government constructively and learn from their mistakes.
However, theories do not always work well, and that’s why we need contingency measurements. If a political impasse prevails between two or more political parties, then a civil society comes into action.
They act like the defender of democracy. Civil society includes the private sphere, addressed as the “third sector” of society, distinct from government and business. Civil society is entrusted to act for citizens’ best interests, mainly at the juncture of a political deadlock.
In the backdrop of the current political situation prevailing in Bangladesh, the civil society was supposed to act decisively, with neutrality and prudence.
The AL wants an end to the violence first, and BNP wants an environment for dialogue, fearing AL could ruin their movement through tricky promises. Our civil society, if there is any, has been unable to make any noticeable progress in mitigating the situation so far.
They, addressing themselves as concerned citizens, have only sent a letter to the president by demanding cessation of the violence. No conspicuous development has been seen yet.
Nevertheless, my question is: Do we really have a structured civil society? The answer is not that difficult. Civil society includes representatives mainly from academia, think tanks, and research institutions.
Others may include independent political and security analysts, retired diplomats, and professionals, jurists, newspaper editors and columnists, and other people who have national-level acceptance. A common trait that civil society members share is the practice of intellectualism.
We never had any lack of intellectual people in our country, but unfortunately, they are not organised enough to make an effective civil society. Divided, civil society is not a silver bullet. Empirical evidence shows that none of the civil society initiatives to resolve political crises has ever brought any results since the overthrow of the military dictator HM Ershad’s government. Distrust has gradually grown between politicians and civil society members by the time. Both the AL and BNP have lost trust over the civil society for the infamous 1/11.
The key people of the then interim government actually came from the civil society and unconstitutionally stayed in power for two years, creating troubles for both parties. After that, any drive from the civil society was clearly unwelcome from AL’s side. Both parties tend to think that civil society members have a vested interest whenever they come up with an initiative. The move of concerned citizens was welcomed by the BNP because it was in line with their demand, but the AL high command castigated the initiative.
After 1991, the civil society got divided into two camps -- the pro-AL and the pro-BNP -- and reaped personal benefits from them. So, when AL was in opposition they always neglected the pro-BNP intellectuals, even if they said something right.
The same also happened with the BNP, and it’s still in fashion. Even today, the persons appearing on talk shows could be branded as biased intellectuals.
University teachers are now accustomed to taking political blessings to succeed in university elections to become VCs, deans, or provosts. Any retired government high-up won’t be believed by the BNP if he was recruited in an AL regime, and vice versa.
To enjoy a little personal benefit, we are sacrificing colossal national interests. People could have different views but when it is for the country’s sake, everyone must come to an agreement. Otherwise, political biases will destroy us. It is painful for us to see the country go one step forward and then two steps back.
