The New Nation - Internet Edition

Syed Mujtaba Quader

It is the ambition of every scientist, economist, physicist, engineer, biologist, mathematician, and political scientist and possibly every logical thinker that ever lived to be able to identify the basic single fundamental formula, or key, or pressure point, that regulates or controls the observed condition or the desired solution to the problem. The law of causation tells us that a problem must be dealt with at a specific level. Superficial cosmetic treatments do not fix problems permanently. Faults or problems not identified at the proper depth cannot be fixed with any finality and continue to persist

It is with this basic presumption that we may start to examine the causes of our present political turmoil. This nation on the 37th year of its independence and right of self determination is still firmly commited to democracy however fragile it may seem at times. Unlike Pakistan with a parallel history, where not a single democratically elected government has been able to complete its term in its entire history, in Bangladesh, there have been three democratically elected successive governments in the last 16 years and the chance of having another democratically elected government have only been missed by the bad behaviour of the main political parties and not to anybody else's fault This poverty stricken nation has given to the world several stellar gifts - the World Language Day on the 21st February of each year, the novel concept of Micro-credit as recognised by the Nobel Peace Prize given to Dr. Yunus in 2006, and the concept of a Caretaker Government to oversee elections in third world countries where not having credible elections can be the main botleneck for democracy. Among the many other achievements seen by this nation are, a growth rate of around 5% for the last 10 years and more, increasing literacy and life expectancy rates, and a steady rise in foreign exchange reserves. So it can be said that not everything is wrong with this nation. One might even say that this nation has already produced the sparks of genius that may eventually start the huge bonfire of progress that everyone is waiting for.

So what is wrong with us? Why is it that this nation cannot sustain democracy even though almost all the basic instruments of democracy are there? Why cannot political parties deliver to the people in a responsible and orderly manner? Why is it that our system has bred such an inordinate amount of corruption even though the people and the ruling middle class are basically compassionate, honest and God fearing conscientious citizens? Why is it that our political parties cannot evolve from within to produce a hierarchy of responsible leaders that can give direction to the nation? Can the answer to all this be found in one simple formula or answer?? The answer may be a resounding yes.

The basic principle of democracy is encapsulated by Abraham Lincoln's famous phrase, 'Government of the people, by the people, for the people'. The leaders must be elected by the people who shall represent them in the law making process. During the entire period of evolution of pluralistic politics that has resulted in the democratic form of government of today the emphasis has always been on the person to person relationship that exists between the leaders and the people. This aspect of citizenry and sense of community that has evolved into the modern nation state cannot be overemphasised. To allow this direct relationship between the person and the person's representative to become vague and feeble is to allow autocracy, or dictatorship to creep in. This is exactly what has been allowed to happen in Bangladesh for the last 36 years. This was done through Article 70 of the Constitution as what is known as the 'anti-defection rule' or the 'anti-Floor Crossing rule'. This has slowly but surely created a divide between the leaders and the people which today seems irreconcilable as evidenced by the arrests of so many top ranking leaders from both the AL and the BNP with no ostensible signs of genuine protests from the general public.

Article 70 of the Bangladesh Constitution, among other provisions, forbids an MP from voting against the party line as enumerated by the party 'high command' and ultimately the Party Chief. In other words the elected representative or MP must vote in favour of the party and not in favour of his constituent voters. The loyalty must be to the party and not to the people. The loyalty must be to the Party Chief and not even to other party members. In a nutshell, if the MP wants to support the views of his constituent voters but if this differs with the view of the Party Chief then he must vote against the interests of his own constituents. This aspect of the Bangladesh Constitution directly contradicts the fundamental basis of democracy as is practised in all tested democracies like the UK, USA, France, Canada, Australia etc.

By its very nature the 'anti-defection rule' discourages democratic practices within the political parties and encourages blind sycophancy. Top leaders do not heed the views of the general membership of the party and behaves with them with disdain. It replaces democracy with 'democratic autocracy' or 'autocratic democracy' neither of which is democracy.

If the reader can so far understand this simple stratagem of clinically emasculating the general body of MPs in a democratic set-up through the 'anti-Floor Crossing rule', then through a litle introspection and application of common sense logic he can comprehend the colossal wrong that this tiny but pernicious stratagem has heaped upon this nation over the last 36 years. The very concept of a viable opposition in Parliament has been negated in every elected government of the past because of the inability of the opposition party to woo over MPs from the ruling party on controversial and important issues which could demonstrate to the nation the political power of the opposition as well. It is the duty of the party in opposition to demonstrate the alternative solution and to positively influence the party in power on maters of national interest The opposition cannot be expected to sit indolently in Parliament for 5 years all the time trying to get the speaker's atention to speak for a few minutes on the floor. Not guaranteeing the right of the minority opposition to make a genuine political point in Parliament expels the opposition MPs on to the streets where they know how to form a viable opposition. This is exactly why in all the governments we have had so far the opposition has resorted to street protests rather than to participating in Parliament The 'winner take all' philosophy fostered by Article 70 goes diametrically against the spirit of democracy. Unfortunately, until the time that Article 70 is made ineffective, this political phenomenon will continue to confound us.

Another aspect of democracy is the faith reposed by the people on the higher qualities and leadership abilities of the chosen representatives. It is one of the main purposes of the parliamentary system to inform the voters about the character, charisma, knowledge, and other virtues of the elected MPs in order to propel only the gifted individuals forward to the platform of leadership. It is paramount that this notion be recognised by the proponents of democracy in third world countries when these same proponents agitate on the streets for the installation of a democratic set-up. In this modern day when huge numbers of people live together in cities, townships and communities it is truly inconceivable that any one individual who vies to be a political representative or possibly a Member of Parliament shall immediately be well known to his constituents. It is through a painful time consuming process of personal interaction with the community that one gets the atention of the electorate. In this situation, an individual through good luck, political lineage or possibly through some novel electoral acrobatics at election campaigns may get himself elected to Parliament It is at this point that he has to show his real metle on the floor of the Parliament and this is where his constituents will get the chance to really know him. If he is proved to be a quiet and unassertive person he will be ignored in the next election. If he is proved to be a liar, or a selfish person the same fate may await him. If he wants every argument to turn into a fist fight he will be shunned by the people. If he likes to fight for the right cause he will be liked by the people. If he is proved to be a disloyal individual who habitually becomes disloyal to his own convictions and to his own party the constituents can be expected to reward him accordingly. But, in the long run, not to allow this MP to vote for his constituents based on his personal conscience is self defeating for democracy and fundamentally opposed to the right of self determination of a people and cannot be allowed to continue in any variation of democracy.

The right of an elected representative or Member of Parliament to vote according to his own conviction and conscience is unassailable in developed democracies of the UK, USA, Canada, Australia etc. One important exception is India. Although not included in India's original constitution an anti-defection rule was introduced in 1985 as the 52nd amendment to the Indian constitution. This became necessary to prevent MPs from switching sides in return for money, power, office or selfish interests in abeyance to the needs of the constituents and the national interest It should be noted that this was done 38 years after independence and even then the 52nd amendment incorporated clauses which did not give total power to the party high command over legislators. For example the 52nd amendment allows the MPs to vote against the party line if they vote 'en bloc' with one third or more members of their own party.

The Party Leaders therefore must always keep in mind the views of dissenting MPs in the lower rungs. Another important example is South Africa where the original constitution of 1996 incorporated the anti-defection rule. However, very soon in 2002 the evil of this rule was realised and floor crossing was allowed.

Many today doubt the sagacity of having implanted democracy in our country in its pure western form through the framing of a constitution that did not relate properly to the socio-political make-up of its people and its time in history. To accept this totally does not do justice to the great strides the nation has made in its own development However it seems that something fundamental is really wrong with its political system. In the absence of a responsive and robust socio-political system which brings gifted individuals to the forefront of national life, identifying political lineage is the sole method left to the uninformed illiterate people to recognise the spirit of leadership and sacrifice among the general membership of the party. And the nation has paid dearly for this in the perverse and blind nurturing of the various political lineages like the Sheikhs, the Zias and the Chowdhurys.

The argument has been made that abrogating Article 70 will fill the country with unsurpassed corruption. Although it is difficult to imagine how corruption of the scale seen in the last 25 years can be surpassed by any government entity anywhere in the world, with the annulment of Article 70 it is very much conceivable that initially corruption in the corridors of Parliament shall prevail for some time and might even blossom. However, in this situation corruption shall become visible especially in front of the electorate and ultimately capable of being eradicated by the electorate in general. What cannot be seen cannot be eradicated. Corruption, as has been seen in the last 36 years is an invisible phenomenon which benefits only the select few in the realms of power. It is entirely conceivable that if the public identifies corruption as something that only benefits the select few they may choose to exorcise corruption through selecting honest politicians in future elections.

Considering the above, it appears that allowing Floor Crossing in parliament is possibly the one single and easy change that can undo most of the wrongs of the past in the political process of this nation. Much of what has happened in the past can be put to the right if only MPs were allowed to have their own views once again. Yes, there would often be vicious verbal exchanges turning into fist fights that we often see in the parliaments of Taiwan, Korea, India and other states. Yes, there would be some price bargaining and power mongering. Yes, there would be the posting of incapable ministers. However, through all this the people would be able to see the true character, and the ability of the individual MPs. In the end, democracy shall have been served. In the end, the people shall have had their way. In the end, good people shall have been propelled to the forefront If the genius of this nation could give the world the World Language Day and the Micro-credit system in its short history of only 36 years, it surely has the courage to make a small change in its Constitution and do away with Article 70, hopefully permanently.