& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

By the people . for the people...

An ideal governance still elusive

WASEEM ALIM
THE human thirst for power is a persistent reality. Ever since the dawn of civilization when people began settling down in groups in villages and towns, the question of governance prevailed and there had been people trying to be the decision makers.
In ancient times, when the protection of clustered human settlements from men, beasts and nature was more important than economic pursuits, the governance naturally was bestowed on the strongest and the ablest. After they died their place would normally be taken by a family member. That was perhaps the beginning of dynasties and class difference evolved between the ruling and the general people. Then, at later stages of human history, such ruling classes began to aspire for kingdoms and empires. Irresistible thirst for power to hold sway of life and death over greater number of people and command
over larger areas land did avail slightest provocation to war and plunder. One of the primary pretense to power was sanctity and upholding of religion. The tribes fought with each other, nations fought with nations in the name of religion. Crusades and 'holy' wars became order of the day. Quite often, the reach and power of theocracy, particularly in medieval Europe, was greater than those of the totalitarian Kings and Emperors. The destiny of a European ruler usually depended on the favour of the Pope.
Religion was, and still is, the main reason to spill human blood in war. Conspiracy and alliances of convenience were the game of ruling class and virtually had little to do with the fate and welfare of common masses. Those were the days when the rulers would exploit the ordinary people and make them pay for their luxury and maintenance of army.
With the coming of nationalism came the idea of democracy, which
promised equal rights to all, which gave the right for individuals to decide by whom they shall be governed, and the priorities be decided and acted upon. In late 18th Century, democracies first appeared in developed countries of Europe. Industrial revolution backed by Renaissance gave Europe the lead. She housed the most powerful countries -- Spain, Portugal, France and Britain. Though some of these countries practiced 'limited democracies' (voting rights were limited to elites and rich merchant class) in their own countries, they pursued worst form of imperialism in other countries. They promoted and fathered slavery in its utmost cruel form, trampled, tormented and exploited people of Asia, Africa, Latin America and any area they colonised by their might. New markets were won and controlled to feed the industrially revolutionised Europe; new places were created to procure the cheapest raw materials for their industries back home. It is by
exploitation of other countries and other people that the new democracies fed and bred. Their lower classes were satisfied by a modest standard of living so as not to rise up against the ruling class of that time. In fact initially a very small group of elite nobles were allowed to vote and then only when situations got out of hand and awareness grew, more people were enfranchised.
If this is how 'democracy' fared in the past centuries, it would look more like a trick devised by the 'privileged' class to preserve their right to rule. For it has greater resemblance to military governance or the governance by divine dictates, prerogative of handful of clerics, and it does have nearer similarities with plutocracy (government by the wealthy). The basic idea of democracy is equality for all, and how does it do that? It gives the masses the choice of saying once, in four or five years, whether a certain person or a group of persons might be allowed to rule over them. The idea of giving votes does
not make everybody equal, for only the rich, powerful and 'well-connected' people get the opportunity to compete for the parliament. It is not necessary that the elected upper level class would work only for the welfare of common people or to their best interest.
In the long honeymoon of mankind with democracy, it is amply proved that in a democratic system we choose a ruler for a four or five years' term. Some present day democracies do have striking similarities with autocracy and oligarchy. Just look and observe how two tested democracies have teamed up to devastate innocent people of Iraq and Afghanistan on false and fabricated pretexts. They acted not for the interest of humanity, but for the vested interest of oil tycoons and rich businessmen. Can the people of these democracies change their leaders now for their anti-people acts? Not until the next election day.
The traditional way the British Parliament acted has undergone
changes. In the old days the House of Commons exercised power directly, and an average member had a good say in the state affairs. Now it is the Cabinet or the government that decides every big question, and the House of Commons can only vote for or against it. So if the government has the majority in the house it can do almost anything. Moreover the Parliament does not define the general principles of any measure or law and therefore it has to leave it to the executive government, to fill in the details. Therefore even if the people do send their representative to the Parliament, he basically has no say in anything other than criticizing, inquiring and finally approving the government measure. I take the example of the British parliament as it is looked up as a paradigm of democracy.
The situation in the third world countries is naturally even worse. In some practicing democracies, family dynasties seem to be the choice of the people! The control over administration, the hooligans
and right equation with the vested interest groups and the sheer money power are the elements that decide who will be the next democratic 'dictator'. The history of South Asia is replete with such examples. In such countries an ordinary person stands no chance because he is not a relation of these families, nor does he have the wealth or the power to be a newcomer. Alternatively, the Chief of Army may decide that the ruling Prime Minister or President is no good and favors the country by taking over power in his own hand. He appears on the TV saying that he is just a caretaker, claims the previous government was an absolute enemy of the country and that there will be new elections within a few months. And by coincidence it happens to be that the General himself stands and wins the elections that were most obviously 'peaceful and fair'!
The communists have a very interesting theory. They say that real democracy can only exist when there is only one class of
people. To bring about this equity, they say that a period of dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary so as to protect the working from the intrigues of the capitalists. However in practice the Communist Party dominates the Government, which in turn is dominated by the top-most clique -- an oligarchy again! The government, as seen in communist countries, is totalitarian so far as freedom of speech and censorship are concerned. The USSR never tasted 'real' democracy even after over 70 years of communism and ultimately floundered and disintegrated.
The mankind's search for a system of governance that meets all its aspirations seems to be as elusive as ever!
Waseem Alim is a student of
Bangladesh International Tutorial