& 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

The British Elections: Do We Have Something to Learn?

by Dr Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi
T .HE Parliamentary Election in Britain has put the Labour Party in power and by that, has set the stage for a new era in the British politics, ending 18 years of continuous Conservative rule. - ■ , ¥.
Two historic events took place in the British election. First, the Labour Party won a landslide victory: of the 659-member House of Commons, it captured 419 seats while the Conservative Party managed to secure only 165 seats. The Labour handed the Conservatives their worst drubbing since 1832 as BBC political analyst Anthony King says, "Landslide is too weak a word. I would offer you a metaphor: it's an asteroid hitting the planet, destroying practically, all life in earth." Second. Tony Blair, the, 43 year-old charismatic leader of the Labour Party, became the Britain s youngest prime minister in 185 years.
In Britain, two things change very quickly after a Parliamentary election: one is the government, if defeated arid the other is the leadership of the defeated party. The polls ended at 10 pm on the 1st of May. and the Prime Minister JOhn Major tendered his resignation to the Queen next day at 11:30 am. In Just an hour's time. Mr Blair was sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Britain.
In accepting the Election results. Mr. Major stated, "We have been comprehensively defeated.” On -the one hand, he congratulated Mr. Blair in his post and offered his help in running the government;.on the other, ne asked his party leaders and workers to reflect upon the defeat and'suggested them to select a new leader to lead them forward in theif reflections. Had the Labour Party failed towin the election, Mr Blair, in all probability, would -have to resign. This is the British political culture.
The British elections perhaps carry little value for us. because the nature and outcome of the general elections in our country .are fundamentally different: they- neither- represent our conscious desire of change ing the government and its policies, nor they bring any relief to our;Xroubled life and provide any hope for the future.
However, thia -election in Britain has .given tfs an opportunity. an occasicrtl.ta reflect on our situation, Td^ipflecr bn what is wrong wittfoyt political system:
Accepting the verdffl of the people by conc^flag -defeat and congratulating the -Victories party Is supposed taWa political courtesy in ..a-democratic system. Unfortunatelyr this political courtesy docs'not exit in our country. we hade truly fair Parliamentary election in 1991 under the caretaker government of Justice Shahabuddin. the present President. Awami League Leader Sheikh Hasina. the present PrUne Minister, covin hot accept the election to be so fair; she. therefore, accused of a sukkha karchupt (subtle manlpuJpXioifl' taken place in tbedlK^jiru-PeWpeopte in 'Biyigladesh Teal+y'under-stood wind-sfiF bad mCant by this jilirase.' Whatever ^as Ihe* meaning of het accusation, she did' two things': first; She created a precedence-of Tlot .welcoming the results of-Wgeneral election that 6,appreciated to be fair bpth ‘ at. home and abroad. Second, she unconsciously questioned the •in-tegrity,,of justice Ahmed, as-the election was Eonducted under his leadership.' , - - '
BNP'S hoUticed fx^silion Is not at-all different Irop that Of Awami League's. Before resigning. tt-concluded an election in which- no Other -political party participated and Was disapproved overwhelmingly hoth at home and abroad: BNP. how ever, claimed their one-party election to be both fair and constitutional. On the contrary, they declined to accent-the results of the general election cotiductedby. the second caretaker government:' Currently they have refused to participate in the by-elections .and "demanded to, remove' the- Chief Election 'Commissioner. Their accusation _ Is. -rtrttt, elections would ndf be fairtfncler himr'an accusatiorf that few'people in Bangladesh can understand.
In democracy. The sovereign power of the state belongs, theoretically. to the people, which they exercise in the general election. People exhibit their approval of a political party by, electing Its leaders to. run the
government. Accordingly, the failure of a political party to form the government amounts to people's disapproval of its leaders. In Britain, if the party in power is defeated, its leader resigns and a new leader is elected by a leadership convention. If the opposition party fails to win the election, a similar political process takes place.
In our country, the outcome of a general election has little effect on the party leadership. This indicates that the people, the presumed sovereign authority of the state, have little influence. let alone control, on our political parties and their leaders. In turn, this reveals the nature and extent of poverty in our political system. The question is. why our political system is like this?
Moudud Ahmed, in his highly publicised book. Democracy and the Challenge of Development: A Study of Politics and Military Interventions tn Bangladesh has identified three factors responsible, in his words, for the crisis of democracy In our country.
The first factor is the factionalism that has been causing fragmentation of our political parties since independence. This, in turn, encourages the formation of new parties. The ultimate outcome of this process is the mushrooming of a large number of parties with poor organisational structure and little pubic support. The second factor is the profound role that the political heritage and the family background have been playing in determining the leadership of political parties in our country.
Mr Ahmed's final factor is the totally autocratic management of the political parties, in his own words, "Each major party is headed by a person who is omnipotent in the management of the party, including the formation of the central and executive committees. The party structures and committee are filled by nominations and not by elections. Council meetings and annual meetings are not held regularly and parties are run at the dictate of one person without any process of consultation or discussion. Loyalty to the leader becomes more im-
portant than loyalty to the party or the country."
Mr Ahmed has indeed identified the true factor responsible for the crisis in our political system. This factor is that our political parties are undemocratic in the true sense of the term; they hardly practise organisational rules and principles. If they did, political parties would not have fragmented due to factionalism and more importantly, political heritage and family background would have played truly productive role.
Both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia were dragged into politics with the express purpose of saving their parties from being disintegrated. The assassinations of Sheikh Mu-jibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman created vacuums in the top Earty hierarchies of Awami eague and BNP. respectively, which the central leaders failed to fill through political process. Sheikh Mujib's daughter and General Zia s wife were brought into the picture to halt the eminent disintegration. Once they were in. they could not be sent back, because there were powerful groups for keeping them in power. However, none of such situations would have developed if these parties were run and managed democratically.
The political culture we observe in the advanced democratic countries is not the result of the magnanimity of their political leaders; it is the achievement of strict practice of democratic principles and values. The Iron Lady Thatcher was forced to hold leadership convention and finally resign from the party leadership during the period of her premiership. John Major had to go through the same process but luckily survived.
How are we going to make our political leaders practice democracy in their parties? We must find an answer if we do care about our welfare. There is, however, one thing that we can be certain of beyond any shadow of doubt: we would never get true democracy in our country if our political parties tend to be undemocratic.
The author Is a visitor. Department of Economics. University of Guelph. Canada.