& 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

Taming unruly democracy

Z.A. Khan
The recent violence around the Dhaka University campus is another manifestation of our intolerance to opposing political views. Our political history is rich in achievement and sadly poor in maintaining the achievements that helped us win blue ribbons.
We can boast of our Liberation War, which is the end result of our long political battle. Our respect for political values started diminishing in the eighties and the nineties of the 20th century.
Money and muscle power became the dominant arms to gain ascendancy in the politics. The current scenario does not hold any promise for us either. Should we let our politics go its own way, which Is marred by inadequate motivation, Intolerance and lack of patience? The views of the old generation and
the emerging young leadership are at variance with each other. The old wants to tame the violent history of our politics while the young opt for a mix of money and muscle to overpoweropposition.
They feel that politicians who think history can be tamed are trying to "lasso a locomotive with cobweb lariat" Their view is for a sedate approach towards political development so that we do not dance blindfolded. This will entail purging of violence to establish reason.
Mutual trust, which is regarded as social capital, is fast depleting, and that is probably the reason why our society has become restless. Frankly, enough endeavour has not been invested lo insulate our society to keep the dynamics of tumult at arm's length.
Conventional wisdom has it that wc should stay calm in the face of confrontation till it becomes outra-
geous. One may ask do we have a history where we demonstrated an approach for amity when embroiled in political differences? I think we allowed despondency and muscle flexing to defeat the opponents.
Is it an uphill task to find a common ground to talk for amity and to search for consensus that assures peace and protection to life and liberty of our people? My conviction is that it is not difficult if all parties agree to resolve issues for the greater interest of the people. Let us not forget the old adage that even "a sheet of paper becomes lighter if twopcoplecarryit."
What, then, docs democracy aim at? Numerous definitions are available that reveal eloquence and objectivity. I simply understand that it is a means to honour the views of the majority, unbiased by the forces oftumult.
Bangladesh has a brief but tumultuous history of democracy. Without
trying to blame any stakeholder, one would like to say that we did not put in great effort to build institutions that guard against desecration of democratic values.
Unfortunately enough, we have not yet been able to rise above the slavish attitude or personality worship, for which most of the parties have fallen victims to identity crisis. Should a party be known by its name or by the leader?
Althougha party and its leaders can be synonymous, it should be the party for which its leaders should work. One cannot, for sure, remark that enough has been done in Bangladesh to empower people to choose political options. Leaders daringly promote servitude with impunity so that they can use them against their political opponent, even for violence.
This had opened the floodgate for the sycophants to surround the leader. These sycophants give the impression to their leaders that they are invincible because they are the best.
Our leaders treat their constituencies as fiefs and the constituents as their subjects. Being poor, our people cannot but resign to their fate of dearth and denial. So, they fall easy victims to cajoling by the leaders who do not seem ashamed
to denigrate our people. I have seen people being called by their names and yet they display calmness even though they are irritated, because they are dependent on the "generosity" of their political patron.
I have seen people appear in constituencies all of sudden in the guise of philanthropists who dole out their ill-gotten (mostly) money a few months before election. As they are able to create a substantial number of beneficiaries, they are requested to contest the election by their designated sycophants, and these "philanthropists" accept the vox populi with grace (not gratitude).
Gradually, these philanthropists turned politicians resort to all kinds of ruses to obtain nomination, if need be by influencing the party highbrows (God alone knows how?), thus the dedicated leaders who may have been working for years for the party and the constituents are sidelined at ease.
The leaders resort to this trick because they know that an average citizen in Bangladesh has very little or no interest in politics, because he remains too busy earning his meals or a cover over his head. His response to those who rule or seek to rule, according to Vinod Mehta, "is made up prejudices, gut feeling,
vague notions, words of mouth, anecdotes and self-certified opinions, Facts, deeds, or views of newspaper pundits rarely cause him to adjust his conclusions."
Unfortunately, perception has become more important than reality in Bangladesh. This is why leadership has nearly become a cult in our environment. Obsessed with made-up vast popularity, we have seen in the past, our leadership often forsake people to enjoy the favour offered by the sycophants, because they are convinced by their sycophants, who collect huge crowds to attend meetings, that the leader has no opposition to reckon with, except a handful of city dwellers and intellectuals who are deluded and misled by the opposition.
Thus, democracy has been dealt severe blow. Over the past three decades, we rarely saw politicians delving on problems like terrorism, human rights violation, ethnic or religious conflict, poverty, or national debt, in or outside the parliament.
The credible reason behind this indifference is that the leaders know that they have not allowed emergence of new leadership in their constituencies to rise with the unremitting support of their sycophants
and goons, who subjugate opposition by hook or by crook with impunity as the government administrators are cajoled or threatened to ignore what is happening.
That is why it is said that moral eclipse due to perceptive dynamics distorts even a good "all holds barred" set of rules. Therefore, we should make sure that the personalisation of power and fragmentation of the party system does not take root as this give rise to tension amongpartysupporters.
It is not unknown to many that "central to any democracy is the right of any group or individual to compete in the political process, unhindered by the people at the helm of the party."
In Bangladesh, politics, till now, has been dominated by strong personalities due to family legacy at the expense of substantive individual capability. We must try to create a transparent political process with the help of civil society to exert pressure on political parties to become more responsive to their constituents.
A vocal, vibrant, fact oriented and fair press can do wonders in educating both leaders and the people about their responsibilities towards politics and tire institutions that help democracy to thrive.
President Ronald Reagan once said; "We should foster infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities which allows people to choose their own way to develop their own culture to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means."
This is the way one can tame the unruly and wily democracy in Bangladesh. Maybe a blend of educated approach and experience will make our long denied democracy worthy of the aspiration, honouring peoples' right of protection to life and liberty that acted as the prime mover in our fight for an independent Bangladesh.
Z A Khan is a former Director General of BUSS