What were Bangladesh’s biggest problems before 1/11? Corruption, nepotism, misuse of power one might answer. One can summarise these as an absence of the rule of law. Probe a bit deeper about why there was no rule of law and one is told ‘it was the politics, stupid’. After 1990, we trusted the politicians with our democracy and they mucked it up — that’s how the narrative goes.
But is this a satisfactory story? Suppose we somehow did away with these rotten politicians (by exiling them through deals or jailing them through a fair trial) and a relatively untarnished leadership came to power in a free and fair election. How confident can we be that the honest leaders of 2008 will not turn into kleptocrats by 2018? After all, many viewed BNP as the party of relatively honest and able politicians in 1991. Why did they, as well as those in AL, turn out the way they did? If we are to avoid a return to the pre-1/11 politics, then we need to answer this question squarely.
I contend that the reason our political leaders turned out the way they did is because of the winner-takes-all nature of the pre-1/11 democracy. In the system devised with the 12th Amendment, we elected a parliament that chose the Prime Minister who had unbridled executive power for five years. We didn’t, and still don’t, have an effective local government. Parliamentary oversights need not have been enforced. If the Prime Minister’s party had absolute majority in the parliament (which was actually the case under all three governments), the opposition could be ignored altogether. The ruling party could pass any law as they saw fit, appoint anyone to any post as they saw fit, distribute relief materials as they saw fit, give out procurement tenders as they saw fit – they could control everything from Bangabhaban to your local cricket club for five years. The Prime Minister and whoever had her ears (or whomever she delegated her powers to) could behave like dictators. There was no ‘accountability moment’ save the election once every five years. Meanwhile, the opposition party had nothing to do for five years. Shut out of the political system altogether, they had no every reason to be obscurantist and no reason to cooperate with the government.
In a competitive market, businesses have to produce what consumers want at a low price, and inefficient firms go out of business. In a competitive political system, parties have to deliver what voters want, and unpopular parties lose office. To avoid a defeat, politicians have to improve their performance. That’s how the theory goes. In our democracy, parties were really afraid of losing. So instead of improving their performance, our politicians tried to rig the system any which way they could. This I contend was the fundamental flaw in our political system. We had a system where the logical thing for the ruling party was to bend every rule to coerce the opposition, and the opposition’s best strategy was to obstruct the government every step of the way — we had a system that made peaceful co-existence very difficult.
It took a while for the politicians to realise the complete nature of the system devised under the 12th Amendment. The first democratic government of Begum Zia started out being tolerant, but spooked by a series of set back halfway through its term, they changed tack. The then opposition for its part saw nothing to gain from co-operating. Hardline actions by one side resulted in hardline actions by the other. The Hasina Wajed government realised that the opposition can be muzzled within the democratic set up and election results could be ‘engineered’. The second Begum Zia government, of course, turned these into an art form.
We should note that this kind of non-cooperative behaviour is not unique to Bangladesh. In the US, both houses of the Congress as well as the presidency was under Republican control between 2000 and 2006. The GOP majority ruled in a very partisan manner while doing everything possible to stop a Democrat victory in 2006. But the US political system has a few in-built features against the winner-takes-all situation. Separation of powers between different branches and levels of governments makes it impossible for any one party to control the country for long. Other mature democracies, including our neighbour India, also have similar features. As we demand corrupt politicians be brought to justice through due process, and while we stress the need to return to democracy, we should also discuss and debate reforms that will help peaceful co-existence amongst our politicians.
Let me finish on an upbeat note. I was in Bangladesh in January. I visited three constituencies: one in northern Dhaka where Gen Ershad was expected to run as the Grand Alliance candidate; one just outside Dhaka that went BNP in all three elections and where Begum Zia was expected to run; and one in greater Mymensingh that swung from BNP in 1991 to AL in 1996 to BNP in 2001 and was very much ‘in play’ this time. Most of us would be aware of the role of wall-writings, chika, during election campaigns. In all three constituencies, as far as I could count, wall-writings were pretty evenly split between the two camps. Now think about the context when these were written. By all accounts, one side was hell bent on rigging the election while the other side was ready to resist it violently. By all accounts, we stood on the precipice of a civil war. And even in those weeks, local political activists shared walls for their chikas. Our neta-netris may have found it heard to deal with each other, but at a grass root level peaceful co-existence was possible even in the dark hours of early January.
So, dear readers, what kind of political reforms do you think will help peaceful co-existence amongst our leaders?
As well as tolerance i want the political arcitecture to raise those who have the craftmanship to serve in public office.
Im not sure whether craftmanship and power control/dissapation can be worked into the equation.
The inherited british system of opposing battalion at the right and left needs to be evolved so we can have a unity government and solve all the hideous social puzzle on our plates. I want a move away from this dialectic theses-antithesis arrangement, its not very south asian.
#1
A cap on the number of seats that we won by any given party would create the desired confusion i thing. say 100 seats of 300. This would force new actors onto the stage, but might also plunge a government into a swamp. Its worth a go.
#2
To reduce this ridiculous boycott of parliament culture, we should reduce the time of absence to a fortnight.
#3
A non-partisan house of the nobility and knowledgable people from every district. The advisors would be part of this house.
#4
Dr Fakhrudin, or one of the advisors to be the speaker of Parliament.
[Reply]
I have been telling this ( And another wise man Dr Yunus, was also thinking in my line
), that whatever engineering scam was planned, the best option for all was to go to election.
Those who have spent some adult days in real communities in Bangladesh ( Not home, car, school, home, car, friend’s home, Chhayanat, home, car , school) will know that when both major paties are actively in the field, and are prepared in advance, rigging will not be able to change the overall election result.
And the best solution to the crsis was an election loss by BNP ( which was inevitable is AL/jote participated).
But someone else, some editors, and some others in civil society did not want that. They constantly spiced up the rigging possibilities and instigated AL to boycott the polls.
[Reply]
Well Joyoti good analysis. Rumi Bhai I am little disagreed with you regarding rigging possibility. I think Iaz Uddin was responsible
for that.
Well I have following suggestions
1) We need parliament and Prime minister form of Govt but these 40 women reserve seats should be canceled .Because it was the biggest flow of constitution. larger majority takes the seat by numbers and become autocrat for five years. So we can’t make any proper alliance partner.
2)Six Division of the Bangladesh should get the status of Province and Local election
and one chief minister should be must and then there will be the balance of power between central and states.
3) Speaker will be selected from ruling party
and Deputy speaker will be from opposition.
4) parliament should not be Single House and there will be reserve seat for Intellect and
Others . They can express their opinion but not voting.
[Reply]
Rumi has hit the nail on the head, and made a point that has either been missed or conveniently overlooked. If the election had gone ahead with both parties participating, no amount of rigging could have changed the result. Anyone who has ever studied the electoral process knows that voting and counting takes place at the grassroot centres, where the major parties have polling agents. Once the sheets have been tabulated, copies are given to all agents. How could the much maligned Justices Aziz and Hasan(even if we accept for argument’s sake that they were hell-bent on rigging the polls) reverse the results? Certain irregularities take place even in countries like the US – but they dont scrap the electoral process for that!
The main factor that precipitated the crisis was intolerance, and the lust for power. As jyoti said, the winner takes all sytem meant neither party wanted to go into the polls in a losing position. To me that was the crux of the matter. Stubbornness from one party led to stubbornness on the part of the other party. The crisis grew. Some vested quarters jumped in. They magnified the crisis, and fanned the flames. If we come to think of it, how was the KM Hasan CTG going to be any different from the Latifur rahman or Habibur Rahman CTGs? Not very, is the answer. The BNP participated in the 2001 elections although they voiced reservations about the Election Commission. They won handsomely. I think the AL would have won this time. But that was not to be.
[Reply]
Tanoy, about expressing dissatisfaction by not voting. Its not a fair argument as nonvoters are termed apathetic and forced voters end up choosing the least terrible party from their viewpoint.
In Student Union elections in the uk, we have a ‘New Election’ option. It would be acourageous step to place that option, and would give greater recognition to those of us who dont want any of them, political orphans if you like, and want a new options. In turn this would motivate new people to stand up.
Rumi,
The Moha Jote chose to become more antagonistic and the media… well the media was the media, sometimes cheerleading for them as well. the media was a smaller driver than the mother of all political alliance.
[Reply]
Jyoti,
Great first post. Will elaborate more when I have a bit more time. But I think the key thing that made peaceful coexistence so difficult for the national leaders is that the cost of losing was made so much higher. If you lost an election, you basically were shut out from everything — whether its decision making or money making. As a result, both the parties wanted to go to election with a guarantee of winning. Of course, AL wanted a level playing field quite justifiably but asking for the resignation of K M Hasan was the biggest mistake.
What’s the solution?
Distribution of seat by percentages of votes received.
Upper house of parliament like Rajya shobha which will also have a selected group of members from civil society and other professional bodies, perhaps.
Before anything is done, the cleaning up of election process and the democratization of the parties are a must. Recent electoral laws changes are good steps in that direction. Which brings me to the point that perhaps we should discuss these draft changes as well. Here they are:
http://www.ecs.gov.bd/press/index.php3?f=pr050407.pdf
[Reply]
Asif
“Before anything is done, the cleaning up of election process and the democratization of the parties are a must.”
I agree cleaning up the election process is mandatory But how do you start the democratization of the parties?
It is too a very good concept but in current condition of Bangladesh we should have a feasibility test.
Biggest problem is that mass journalists and
Political analyst refers “democratization of the parties” to change of leadership or dynasty politics.
But I think It will be a very difficult task and certainly not be accepted to root level workers.
Even any internal electoral process going on the party by ballot , I am 100% sure that majority of the workers will go with Party
founder’s next generation. Because they have watched those people on symbol of unity.
Even In Joint leadership things will not improve. That’s why the development of popular leadership is very important.
My opinion is process should be start before reform the party line.
I am very much supporter of Indian Model in here.we should have Both Rajja Shobha and Lokh shobha.
basically we have also scope to develop
regional party. So we have scope to avoid two party system. even in the Major party also Parallel leadership can be developed
via State election.
one Chief Minister can be leader of Vision.
If we notice in last 5 election of India none could get absolute Majority . So they needed alliance . So there are very less chance of those parties to be dictator .
But In Bangladesh both Al and BNP did not get full majority. But those 40 women reserve seats gave them full of power.
Now even regional parties like SP, BHSP, DMK, AIDMK ,Telegu Desham etc are become King maker in Indian politics.
I know there are some limitations. But we might have a try.
[Reply]
I think the elephant in the room is a lot of peoples chief nightmare, JI and even the JP. they are already steering stemselves through the coalition politics arena. JP is extremely regional.
I wonder what ideas are flowing around the heads of chairmen in the mufassil towns. Would be a good idea to write articles looking at them and their attitudess making new parties (or are they so swamped with internal division and two party allegieance?)
[Reply]
The most obvious and crying need is separation of judiciary. CTG made a strong start, and 3 more weeks are now deadline for completion.
Other reforms needed are:
1. Impeachment provision for PM and ministers.
2. Term limits for PM
3. RAB and Police to be moved under (separate) Judiciary so that politicians have no direct misuse of RAB & police.
4. HARTAL and OBORODH as national shutdown must be banned. (peaceful strike is OK, but desruptive hartal is not OK)
5. Accountability, and public info on elected officials
6. Independant ACC, capable of arresting, freezing wealth and investigating any politician
Basically a Code of Conduct for politicians is also needed for their performance, attendance, reporting, transparency, income, expenditures and assets.
Once politicians are brought under the law, and ALL are treated EQUAL under the law, whether PM, MP opposition or ruling party, then a peaceful coeistence will automatically arrive.
[Reply]
Everyone, thanks for the comments. Proportional voting, bi-cameral legislature and devolution of power are all possible reforms that ought to be discussed in more detail. I’ll try to write in detail about some of the suggestions, including. Some quick comments follow.
Fugstar,
Capping a number of seats for the winner sounds fundamentally undemocratic. I’m not sure about dialectics (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) being not Desi. Can you elaborate please? I agree with you that it’s very important to know what the local chairmen and members are thinking. I’d be grateful if you, or anyone else, can write on the goings on in district towns.
Asif,
The proposed electoral reforms should definitely be discussed in greater detail, both by us here, but much more importantly by the general public in Bangladesh.
KGazi,
What do you mean by ‘impeachment provision’? There is an impeachment provision — a majority of votes in the House can remove the PM. This is much less onerous than the impeachment provision in the US constitution.
[Reply]
[...] wasn’t corruption that was the fundamental flaw with our democracy.  As I’ve argued previously, the problem was the winner-takes-all nature of the political system. That system needs reform, [...]
[...] moon. They will disappoint in many respects. But given enough time, they will devise a way to peacefully coexist. And in the meantime, life will go on. And slowly, we’ll slouch towards the day when [...]
[...] national shortcomings, was the fundamental reason behind the political crisis that led to 1/11 (see here). I contend that the most effective way of giving the opposition a stake in [...]