& 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

Our problematic political culture

G. M. Quader
IT is said that democracy has never been practiced in Bangladesh in the true sense.
The basic requirement of a representative government was never totally fulfilled, neither any government administered the country following fundamental democratic values.
Some blame the political structures, especially the political parties. Most of the important political parties who were in power in the past never ran their internal activities in a democratic way. It is argued that practice of democracy in state affairs cannot be expected from a political party that does not practice it in running its own party affairs.
Some suggest the opposite logic, that in the absence of an overall democratic environment, how a political party would be democratic in isolation. Both the arguments have merit. In fact, both may be considered correct in the context of Bangladesh. For that, solution lies not only with the democra-tisation of the political party or even of state apparatus or functions only. A democratic social value system must be cultured in the society for sustainable practice of democracy.
In the social context of Bangladesh the problem of practice of democracy lies with democracy itself. Democracy projects the idea that running of overall politics including that of state functions would be governed reflecting the desires of the people.
Politicians in government or in any other capacity are to be guided by the wishes of the people and would not be autocratic -- that is the expectation in a democratic society. Politics and politicians are supposed to be accountable to the people for their activities for the same democratic norms. As such, comes the necessity of periodical evaluation of responsibility, and reshuffling of leadership on a predetermined system, and definitely not on the basis of heredity
But what about the case if it is the desire of the people that the leader should run politics autocratically? Or if people decline to change leadership even when the leader fails to perform? Or changes are planned on the basis of hereditary line with the consent of the people? How would anybody define that situation?
Is it democracy, as things are being done as per desire of the people? Or is it anti-democracy, as
the activities defy the basic expectations of a democratic system? This is exactly what is going on in Bangladesh.
If somebody wants to go in depth to find the reason behind, it is the family value we nurture and the social cultures we arc in that have great influence on our political culture being practiced historically.
We nourish the traditional family values where head of the family has the prerogative of being dictatorial in decision making, which other members of the family are obliged to accept This family value has kept us away from the consultative decision making process in other matters of life too, including running of political parties and governments.
In the past, people had been socially identified in any of the two distinct classes, feudal lords and subjects. Feudal lords were the ruling class and the subjects were the working class at their service. Though the feudal system has been abolished quite some time back, still the society remained divided between rich elites with wealth and influence and the poor hapless working class who hold no power. That has kept intact the fibre of the feudalistic society. The elites hav-
ing wealth and influence are considered as ruling class, with the poor commoner being their subject The commoner could never be considered in this society to become a ruler.
Bangladesh remained a feudalistic society long after the departure of feudal lords. Even during subsequent democratic systems, political power used to be handled mostly by the elites. The competition for political power was also amongst the elites in most cases. The same trend still exists. Presence of a growing middle class is too insignificant till date to make any impact on the feudalistic social outlook of the mass. So, in fact, true democratic cultural was never practiced here.Theso-called democratic system of the People's Republic which was in practice may be termed "feudal democracy" and not "democracy."
People are still for the look out of a king/queen/prince to run politics and political power. They are not yet ready to accept a commoner in that place. Real king or big landlords or their heirs or elites by hereditary means are no more available as the system was abolished long time back Now a commoner who has ambition for political power tries to look like a king/queen/prince in the eyes of the other commoners to have their acceptance. For achieving that it becomes necessary for that person to acquire sufficient wealth by hook or by crook and other trademark qualities of those old time elites like having private army of their own to establish their own
As has already been told, it is
difficult for people at large to perceive any person other than from elite class, identified these days with wealth and influence including muscle power, to become a part of ruling class. Only the rich or the rogue is considered fit to be a political leader in the eye of a commoner.
This is the way money and muscle had to come in the political system as a natural consequence of our political culture due to social pressure. Environment of corruption and criminalisation thus flourished in the political arena with the passage of time.
Political parties or other political institutions have also been developed following the same culture for similar reasons. Leader being
considered as master and the other rank and file being the servant to serve as per order has been evolved. Decision making is being kept confined within top leadership with no participation from the common members.
Culture of accumulation of wealthy and influential members, irrespective of their criminal records, and creation of private army by providing illegal facilities and protection continued to be encouraged. That provides the look in a political structure of wealth and physical strength and carries more weight as regards its effectiveness in election and other political operations in the present day social context.
It is no more a debatable point
that democracy best suits the need of peace and prosperity of the people in general by providing optimum good governance and securing social justice and rule of law. People of Bangladesh have been continuing their struggle for democracy for a long time now, knowing and believing in that.
But, they could never been successful in achieving their goal so far or reap the benefits of democracy. The reasons lie within them in their lack of awareness for which they still carry the long outdated feudalistic social outlook which resulted in creation of a distorted political culture breeding corruption and criminalisation in the name of democracy.
For the benefit of our country
and its people, it is the duty of the politicians to provide leadership to the nation in practice of democracy in its true form instead of following the easy course of floating with the tide. They should be all united to become more democratic, following democratic values in running their political parties and other political activities and stop encouragement of corrupt and anti-social people in politics. Creation of awareness in people to understand how to exercise their right to get the benefits of a democratic system is another job needed to be done by politicians. All conscious citizens and civil society, along with media, may assist them in that
G. M. Quader is a former Member of Parliament