WITH advancements in science and technology, and in the principles of administration and management, new words and phrases have been added to the English language. Some of them have been interesting and others have provided food for thought. A classical addition has been 'sociometric overlay'. These two words in public administration sound very technical. In simple terms however, it means informal access to the decision-making process (the indirect linkage based on friendship or family relationship). Administrators consider such overlay to be mostly harmful in the context of good governance. British Prime Minister Churchill thought that it contributed towards corruption. We have seen evidence of this in Bangladesh for the last few years.

Over the last few months since 11 January of this year, enlightened citizens, commentators, political scientists, economists, professionals and officials associated with civil administration and also the armed forces in Bangladesh have discussed at length about the connotations of some significant words -- politics, development, security and democracy. Some have even spoken at length about the principles involved in political developments in the recent past and how they have impacted on our governance. Others have indicated that failure to strike a balance had led to erosion of moral values and subsequently corrupt practices. Articles in the media have also highlighted how deterioration within the political scene has affected democratic institutions.

The whole nation is currently going through a phase of re-thinking and self-

introspection. In fact, one may state that we, collectively and individually, are involved not only in the reexamination of the principles associated with maintenance of law, good and effective governance, transparency and accountability, but also their relationship with the nation's security and the survival of sustainable democracy. We are faced today with some important challenges.

The question is no longer confined to just the holding of a general election so that we can convene the Ninth Jatiyo

Sangshad. We have a bigger picture that is seeking our attention. Restoration of fundamental values is now taking priority. This aspect of public life is assuming special importance because of its direct impact on the development of political and social institutions, on economic development and national security associated with the good of the people.

All of us believe that we fought for an independent country to achieve prosperity based on self-reliance. We also sought a status where socio-economic opportunities would be available to all on an equitable basis. Thirty-six years after our freedom struggle, we are taking stock as to whether politics is for political parties or for the people. We are also trying to analyse whether the genius of our people demands the creation of a new matrix within our political arena. We are also examining the scope and kind of fundamental reforms that are required to establish an accountable and transparent process of governance.

It is in this regard that some have suggested the need for the evolution of a 'meaningful and functional' democracy. It has also been underlined that

the achieving of such a brand of democracy will require time, sincerity and vision. I agree with this assumption.

Most of us know of the failures that caused the total breakdown of administration in the recent past. Dispassionate and careful scrutiny will reveal that factors like election engineering, greed, dynastic ambitions, abuse of authority and access to power, all juxtaposed to create this unfortunate situation. Common people had to shed blood once again to bail the country our of a potential catastrophe.

One speaker in a recent seminar remarked that the last 'fifteen years of democratic rule created stalemate, decisional handicaps, susceptibility to rhetoric and vested interests'. Strong words indeed! We need to however analyse why this happened and whether such a course could have been averted.

Any consideration of the essence of this statement has to be undertaken against certain basic postulates associated with parliamentary democracy. We need to find out whether democratic rule had failed or whether important pillars on which the edifice of democracy rests had been whittled away. We also need to objectively analyse whether narrow partisan greed had been the real cause of the failure. We also need to examine whether an alternative format of governance could have consolidated democratic trends and negated the emergence of such negative factors.

The malaise might have been caused not by 'democratic rule' but because of its absence.

The Parliament failed to perform its desired function as the true sentinel of democracy. A lopsided majority com-

posed of businessmen set their sights not on national interests but on how members of the ruling Alliance could add to their personal wealth. It was not the fault of the concept. It was the misuse of its ethos.

Bipartisanship, the very essence of parliamentary democracy was sacrificed and thrown into the lake adjacent to the Jatiyo Sangshad.

The Judiciary, for narrow political ends, was tampered with and its neutral character maligned. Inexperienced and controversial persons were appointed

to this highest seat on the basis of perceived political affiliations. The abuse of this institution, so necessary for proper democracy, was undertaken by the past alliance government to ensure that future chiefs of caretaker governments would continue to be from their side. What a shame, we cannot however blame 'democratic rule' for this perversion of justice.

Similarly, the Executive machinery, particularly, the law enforcement authority, became a tool for repression. This was done to improperly assure continuity of dynastic and personal ambitions.

It was the coalescence of all these above factors that negated the construct of governance and destroyed facts associated with democratic traditions. It was the manner in which democracy was practiced that gave 'democratic rule' a bad name.

From that point of view I welcome an inter-active engagement whereby we can again have a meaningful and functional democratic process. This will mean changes and reforms and greater adherence to the rules and spirit of the game. This Interim Administration has already taken some significant steps. We

have a newly constituted Election Commission and a more effective Anti Corruption Commission. We have successfully ensured the independence of the Judiciary from the Executive. Several measures and corrective step have also being taken to plug the legal loopholes that permitted the corrupt to escape through the backdoor. Certain other emotive issues pertaining to giving of due respect to our national leaders are also being addressed. We, in this regard, also hope to see the completion of the process of justice pertaining to the brutal

assassination of national leaders that took place on 15 August and in early November 1975.

References have been made by some among us to identify whether we can have a better or different blend and balance in the sharing of powers as envisaged in the Presidential and Parliamentary forms of government. Instead of discarding such a suggestion as impractical, let us examine it carefully. Let a National Commission be appointed for this purpose composed of important stakeholders -- jurists, political scientists and representatives from the civil society, the armed forces ('the silent partner') and also from important political parties. Let the pros and cons be discussed and common denominators established. Subsequently, such a Commission could prepare a white paper that could be published in the media. Later, a referendum could be held on the basis of the corrected voters list, to ascertain if the people want incorporation of such changes in our Constitution. These recommendations could then be debated within the Parliament after elections, and necessary amendments made to the Constitution.

In the meantime, the relevant Agencies of the government should start in right earnest to complete their tasks -correction of the national voters list and the creation of the required database for issuing of voters ID cards. The elections can only take place after the completion of this exercise. At the same time, new reference points need to be drawn up so that necessary reforms can be brought into the electoral exercise and we can have a meaningful and functional democratic governance 'for the people, by the people and of the people' instead of 'far the people, buy the people and off the people'.

This could include compulsory registration of political parties, transparency in their financial dealings, regular auditing of revenue and expenditure and the growth of democratic principles within the parties themselves. For example, as in other parliamentary democracies elsewhere, all members of the political parties could also create their leadership structures from their lowest tiers through elections (rather than selection), held every two years, and gradually work their way upwards to the national level. This would immediately contain the prospects of dynastic ambitions that fundamentally contradict the spirit of democracy. It would also enable the political parties to select better electoral candidates for the Parliament on the basic of merit and not black money and muscle power. All these elements could come up for discussion in indoor meeting of political parties and also in their parleys with the Election Commission.

Basic reforms within an 'affordable' time frame will permit these imperatives to be reflected within the process of governance and polities. If we can build on our latent positives, we might be able to meet our Millennium Development Goals. We must all work together to ensure that our people can enjoy their freedom in a peaceful manner, with dignity and that everyone can seek justice and obtain it.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net