ONE of the many dilemmas of democracy is whether it works better bottom up or top down, and one more time it looks like it will be dictated from the bully pulpit of a few wise men Sit tight and wait for the corning attractions. The Truth Commission is going to break box-office record. We are told that the National Security Council is also ready for release. Hold your horses, ladies and gentlemen! It's coming soon to a theater near you.

By all means, get ready to see yet another instance of highhanded democracy when the fortunate few are going to decide what is good for the unfortunate many. For last thirty-seven years, it has been the same story going in circles. Call it presidential form, call it parliamentary form, then referendums, caretaker governments, emergency rules, amendments to the constitution, one after another, choices have been made for the people and shoved down their throats.

Perhaps democracy has never worked in this country for the same reason defining moments in life are never planned. We never allowed it to grow, and always tried to manufacture it.

That brings us to the Murphy's Law on a national scale. Those who arc not familiar with the term, allow me to explain. It is an adage in Western culture that broadly states that anything which can go wrong will go wrong. That means the government will create the National Security Council, since it's inclined to do so.

Yes, many countries have it, but I am not convinced that our rough terrains are ready for this fragile plant. I am also not convinced that we are prepared to handle such a sophisticated thing. We are struggling to effec-

tively run the government in its simplest form. How will it help if it's saddled with yet another complex machinery? If we must get the derailed train back on the track, why load up the cars and make them even heavier to lift?

If we recall, we arc in this mess because in October 2006 the transition of power couldn't be smooth. It was because the ruling political party which was going out of power had a nouvelle idea of democracy. It wanted to hand over power without losing grip on it. When investigating into larceny, we stumbled on the evidence of robbery. Politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats were in cahoots, and together they had plundered this country.

Think of the avuncular family physician who recommends mouthwash while checking your tonsils. Likewise, this government came to power to restore democracy, but it also wanted to fix a few other things. I must say it

has done a remarkable job fixing those things. The much awaited separation of judiciary is done. The Election Commission got its acts together. Above ali, a once toothless Anti-Corruption Commission is now biting. Not to say, we ought to give this government a big hand for putting all those culprits behind bars.

But the challenge remains if these changes are going to stick. Where does the National Security Council fit into this picture? Is it going to strengthen or weaken the government? Is it going to support or supervise the government?

One academician argued on television that the National Security Council was going to have think-tanks that would advise it on matters of national interest. Don't know, can't say. How is it possible without having the backward linkage ready? Where shall we find these thinktanks when the standards in our schools are miserably failing?

Yes, I have had many expectations from this government, but reinventing democracy wasn't amongst them. I expected that this government was going to help us go back to the basics. I hoped that it was going to significantly diminish corruption, restore law and order, reform the political parties, strengthen the judiciary, and hold free and fair elections. Then we would have a new beginning. Once again we would start to work in the offices, learn in the schools, enforce laws on the streets, secure justice in the courts and feel safe in our homes.

More than anything, I hoped that this government was going to give this country back to the people. Rise and shine, that dawn is gone. Prices are rampant, politicians are edgy, processes are slow, and people are running out of patience. A small step in analogy can be a giant leap in understanding.

The government is lot like a driver who doesn't own the car but he is paid to sit at the wheel! Lest this government doesn't realise it, the driver is now busy telling us where to go without paying attention that the car has been skidding off the road!

It doesn't take a wizard to figure out that democracy works better when government is close

to people. If the National Security Council is going to be created, so be it. But how is it going to bring government closer to people? For a while, we talked about home-grown democracy. The Westminster style doesn't work. The American style doesn't work. We wanted our own brand of democracy to give it the flavour of our people.

Now, we are trying to use another alien concept to overcome the difficulties of an existing one! There are reasons why it has worked in other countries. But we are building the roof before the pillars are standing. And this is why it may not work for us. Instead, it is likely to create another layer, which will remove our government further away from people.

That is exactly what happened to the king who appointed an inspector to find if his milkman was putting water in the milk. The inspector was compromised and the milkman put more water in the milk. The king appointed more inspectors and the milkman mixed more water. You may not find it in the English language, but when solution creates more problems I call It the Milkman Paradox.

If we don't wish to dilute the democracy, please cut out the middleman.

Mohammad Badnjl Ahsan a banker