The New Nation - Internet Edition

MAS Molla

The governments of Bangladesh have been democratic since March 1991. But the type of democracy being practiced has not been satisfactory at all. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) came out victorious in 1991 general election not because the party was more democratic than others or there was very good prospect of doing good to the nation; even not because Begum Zia herself has been a great leader but because she is the wife of Late President Ziaur Rahman who was a charismatic leader. So it was Zia's 'charisma' that led BNP's victory. Next time in 1996 general election, the Awami League (AL) came out victorious, again not because the party's democratic records were very good or the nation expected a social or economic boost through the agency of this party; even not because its leader Sheikh Hasina herself has been a leader of great public acclaim but because she is the daughter of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman-the founder President of the country. So this victory was also due to Mujib's charisma.

By this time both Begum Zia and Sheikh Hasina themselves developed 'charisma' and they are the 'symbols of unity' in their parties though there are more expert politicians in both the parties. So both AL and BNP politics is driven by charisma, not by political expertise or by mission of public welfare. In any kind of talk, the expert politicians in the parties have to show respect by using 'deshonetri' (leader of the country) or 'jononetri' (peoples' leader) while referring to these two symbols of unity. If these charismatic leaders were satisfied with the position of 'symbols' and considered expert opinions of 'uncles' or 'senior brothers' the parties could be run much better. If the leaders practiced democracy inside the parties, most of the party leaders being 'elected by party members', rather than 'selected by the single leader', we could have been lucky to have a true democracy in the country. The democratic culture inside the parties would be transferred through convection to the entire political culture of the country.

Unfortunately, we could not reach even the first level; let alone arriving at the second demanding level of democratic culture. Therefore Khaleda Zia (being everybody's 'Madam') feels free to 'appoint' or 'dismiss' the party Secretary General (SG) as if the SG is her personal secretary. Sheikh Hasina is also free in declaring in open meting that a man like Jainal Hazari is an invaluable asset of her party; she needs no consensus inside the party executive committee before saying so! May be the AL party constitution is rather democratic as regards electing the executives, but BNP seems to be simply a family property- all playing a merry-go-round encircling the 'Madam'. Therefore BNP and Zia's family seems to be almost synonymous.

We all know the Caretaker Government (CG) provision, first by consensus and then by constitutional provision worked well only twice (in 1990-'91) and in 1996. Most people were so happy with those two CGs that if there were any provision for those to work for full five years, the people would be happier. But the CG of 2001was constituted with persons of AL's partisan choice so that the party could perpetuate power. But the CG just after taking oath started working independently; that was a headache for AL stalwarts and they started expressing dissatisfaction. The CG of 2006 was just a puppet of BNP (again, thus formed to perpetuate power to establish a feudal state where the princes and their friends could have garden home and enjoy beauty of deer, staying very much in their home campus) and it was shamelessly working for the mentor party. Only few advisers stood erect but lastly fell down being hopeless of contributing anything good.

Having this background, the interim government of CG-design backed by the armed forces just on taking oath on January 11, 2007 planned some reform agenda so that the political parties themselves practice democracy that can have positive impact on the overall democratic culture of the state. Peoples' aspirations were being expressed by some senior leaders of both BNP and AL, and even some new-comers were found trying to form parties promising that they would practice better democracy; some efforts died down, some are still in the field.

However, to my view, both BNP and AL reformists came up with some impractical reform plans. Few BNP leaders are still hoisting their faltering flag, while all AL reformists have been clever and slowly joined the line behind Sheikh Hasina again. This gesture inspired her to declare 'no election' if she is not released- a U turn from her sagacious earlier position.

It seems that all reform agenda are being sacrificed to the deity of unflinching charisma. The cause, I think, lies in two wrongs from two sides. The reformists of both the major parties put forward very radical reforms that I commented before as 'impractical'. The two ladies are the undoubted symbols of unity in the parties, in absence of those the parties are bound to break into pieces because there are many having almost equal political expertise in both the parties. So party chairmanship might have better been kept unquestionable and the said symbols could hold that position as long as they are supported by the party executives; no time line like two terms is feasible. The reform should have been in curtailing some authoritarian and rather feudal provisions in the parties, like 'appointing' the general secretary or other leaders in the stem or the branches of the party concerned. All executives need to be elected by the workers of any party, taking into account also the supporters' view. The other reform could be distribution of major posts like the Prime Minister or Leader/ Opposition Leader of the House. In principle, Leader/ Opposition Leader of the House should be capable parliamentarians- not the symbols of unity who don't have enough expertise or even the proper attitude to run the Parliament.

The other wrong is from the CG and EC. The advisory committee of the interim government has been trying so many changes that are actually beyond an interim government's capacity. The CG or EC should not have any agenda (hidden or expressed) like the infamous 'minus two formula'. I understand that since EC wants reform, it will prefer the reformist faction of BNP. But it cannot put any force on the factions to come united (can only say that a united BNP would be appreciable). If smaller new parties can come as distinct parties, why are only two factions of a major party not welcomed by the EC? The factions may or may not unify, it is their jurisdiction, not the EC's. The EC had an informal talk with the apparently larger faction as well; hope this will continue during the formal talks also as long as there are factions.

I don't have any urge to the leaders rallying round charisma because they seem to be the real opportunists (at best they can be termed 'fearful beings'; breaking away from the reformists faction, some BNP standing committee members lined up directly behind the 'appointed' SG just because they don't have the courage to take risk of bringing forward the needful reform agendum) having no mission of serving the people; have only the dream of perpetuating power and of establishing a feudal society where all praises are for the king or the queen. My urge both to the reformist groups of political parties, to the government and to the EC is to compromise on some lofty reform agenda so that the few essential ones can be materialized. If they fail, the political culture would be back to square one. Should they let the people fall into the abyss of charismatic darkness again? In no way all the reform efforts should be sacrificed to the deity of charisma!