The New Nation - Internet Edition

Mostafa Kamal Majumder

Change of leadership is the beauty of democracy," so spoke the outgoing American President George W Bush the other day as his experience of life at the White House was being aired by a foreign television channel. His tenure is over and he is no longer entitled to living in the most famous home in the US.

Bush Junior is lucky in that he has served a maximum of two terms as President. His father George Bush was denied the second term following the Gulf War of 1991 as the US electorate did choose William Jefferson Clinton who was president for two terms during the intervening period. Democrat James Earl Carter was also denied the second term in 1981 after his bid to secure the rescue of US hostages from Iran did end in a disaster in the desert.

Against the backdrop of another democratic election being held in Bangladesh it's worth recalling a comment made by former US President Carter on monitoring of the 1991 elections. Carter had prepared himself, but could not ultimately come to monitor the polls following the 9/11 attacks in the US. At the close of a short visit to Bangladesh before that election he told a questioner, "Observing election in Bangladesh is a rewarding experience, because it is here a national past-time and even a rickshaw-puller believes that he has a say in who should be the next prime minister."

The present election in Bangladesh has also attracted observers from the US, the European Union and Asia. In another day's time the voters would elect members who would form the next Parliament and the next government.

National elections always create an air of festivity all over Bangladesh and a lot of noise as rivals compete to have popular support in their favour through different modes and methods of communication. Election campaign scenarios are by and large similar in all democracies. At campaign time the nation looks divided as rivals not only profess different economic and political thoughts but also at times tend to use offensive language against each other. The difference between established democracies and the nascent ones lies in that results are accepted in good grace in the former and most often challenged in the latter. By and large democratic nations stand more united after elections than before.

One problem of democracy is that the elected person may not be the best one from a constituency in honesty, competence and track record because normally party nominees win elections as they are backed by political organisations and their workers. Individually honest and competent candidates generally fail to attract sufficient numbers of voters to win elections. The Election Commission this time has made provision for casting 'no' votes so that voters can express disapproval of candidates nominated by parties and those contesting independently. It's to be seen whether this would have a moderating influence on the choice of candidates in subsequent elections, but it can be said without any hesitation that modern democracies cannot function without democratic political parties.

Parties winning elections rule with the willing consent of other parties that remain in the opposition. The losing parties again do not rest till the next election, but instead keep a vigil on those who are at the corridors of power. In the absence of this vigil the parties in power cannot be kept in check. The vigilance function is however, also done by conscious citizens and the news media, also known as the fourth estate. The bond that keeps together the winning and the losing parties is the General Will of the people expressed through the Constitution - written or unwritten. The Constitution sets down the rules of the game which democratic political parties are pledge-bound to uphold and which they cannot do without.

The political parties, so to say, the people of Bangladesh should thank themselves that they succeeded to give to themselves a consensus Constitution in 1991 after 44 years of trial and error that had started with the creation of erstwhile Pakistan. In fact, it was on the question of framing an acceptable Constitution that Bangladesh parted with Pakistan and emerged as an independent and sovereign nation. There is a tendency in some quarters to talk in the language of those who had torn apart the 1956 consensus Constitution of the then Pakistan. Field Marshal Ayub Khan had probably stupidly done this disservice to his nation to introduce Basic Democracy that he had thought was 'suited to the genius of the people'. Needless to mention the scheme did suit the purpose of consolidating his power base. He ruled with all pomp and grandeur for ten years and gave to Pakistan a glorious period of economic development. The cost however, was the severing of political and social fabrics in the absence of which the country fell apart within two years of his resignation from power.

In independent Bangladesh some people did raise feeble protests against the 1972 Constitution for not consulting people of all shades of opinion. The argument of critics was that the Constituent Assembly that framed it comprised overwhelmingly Awami League representatives elected for the Pakistan National Assembly and the then East Pakistan Provincial Assembly. The document, by and large accepted by the people, however did not remain in shape following the introduction of the one-party Bksal system in 1975. Since then power changed through coups or elections but the system with an all-powerful president at the helm remained in place till the mass upsurge of 1990. The present Constitution is the result of the democratic aspirations that grew during nine years of movement against autocracy. It is however, not the holy Qur'an and thus not sacrosanct and can be amended by following the required procedures laid down in the Constitution itself. But any fundamental change to it may be disastrous. Because such change might alienate people, and in the event of such alienation nobody can tell when the nation would experience a meeting of minds again, as was the case in 1991, to be on a consensus on the fundamental law of the land. So, even though amendments might become necessary to tune the Constitution to changed needs and circumstances, there is the need for caution that this fundamental law is not changed at will. If for any reason a major shade of political opinion feels alienated and develops dissent against the Constitution the body politic would start suffering from a serious wound which would take a long time to heal. The unity in diversity guaranteed under the Constitution should not be disturbed. Instead, it should be protected at all costs.

A Bangladesh-born US citizen during a visit to the country recently expressed her disapproval of the ways the major political parties in Bangladesh are run, and commented, "It's better the politicians stay away from power. They are corrupt and their leaders secure selfish interests at the cost of the people." She however, changed her short-sighted view when she was confronted with the question as to who would then take responsibility of the affairs of the state in the long term. Ad-hoc arrangement is always short term. Under such dispensation of things people also plan for the short term. Investment, production, employment and economic growth suffer as a result. Nearly two years of the Caretaker government clearly demonstrated the weaknesses of a non-political government that lacks active support from the grass-roots.

Questions are raised as to who would protect against a democratically elected government from degenerating into party dictatorship or one-man rule which is again intolerant of the opposition. A close look would indicate that such questions come from frustrations when high expectations are not met. Due to revolution in information and communication technology the people can compare the behaviour of our politicians with those in established democracies every day by observing their activities as reported by the print and the electronic media. Many people often forget that in terms of economic and social development the country is at least a century behind the established western democracies. The Indian democracy has become stable because of its uninterrupted functioning for six decades. A scrutiny would show that the Indian politicians look and behave more like Bangladesh politicians than those in western democracies. They are steadily improving. There is no reason to believe that Bangladeshi politicians cannot improve. There is no scope not to improve if elections are held at regular intervals. Because at the close of every term politicians have to go back to the people for mandate for the next term. No punishment can be greater for a political party than its defeat in the election. Politicians take lessons from such punishment. Those who do not perish. This rule can be no different in Bangladesh.

How again, one's attention can escape the saying that the people get the government they deserve? Famous British Prime Minister (from 10 January 1957 to 18 October 1963) Harold McMillan is reported to have once revealed, he was angry with a post office employee who was removing a special telephone set as he returned to the 10 Downing Street residence following his resignation from the post. The post office man quietly replied, "You are no longer entitled to using this set, Sir!" Recalling the incident many years later McMillan reportedly observed, this is why democracy is firmly rooted in the UK. Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy. Not only the leaders but also the government employees and the people should see to it that nobody is above the law and things are done only in accordance with law which guards against excesses by those who are in power. Can the US President, who is the most powerful head of state on earth, stop or delay the November 4 presidential election held once every four years or refuse the transfer of power to the president-elect on January 20? No, he cannot. The American people would not accept such deviation from constitutional obligations. American democracy is more than two centuries old. Yet complaints are sometimes made about fairness of elections there. In fact, democracy can never be fault-free because it is all about and is practiced by human beings who can never be perfect. Democracy will always be noisy and messy because under this process decisions are taken by consulting people's representatives. The system however, is smarter as it is stable and all concerned own the decisions.

(The writer is the editor, The New Nation)