& 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

A time for choosing without a choice

Mohammad Badrlil Ahsan
rrniME and tide wait for none. Neither do elections. Now that the government is going it alone without waiting for the opposition, the preparation for unilateral polls gives the feeling of rising fever without shivering. The Election Commission is working. The candidates are chosen. Filing and withdrawal of nomination papers are done. More than half the candidates have even won uncontested.
Everything looks good except for the irony of a wedding procession where the bridal party is missing.
When so many candidates win uncontested, it's a matter of choosing without a choice, which puts two pillars of the state at stake. First one obviously is democracy when people are denied their right to vote. Second is the concept of republic, a representative form of government wherein the people choose fellow citizens to represent them. If one wonders how one-sided elections should suit democratic aspirations, one should also wonder whether the People's Republic is getting reduced to an oxymoron.
If the current chutzpah goes to its logical conclusion, it'll be interesting to see what kind of a government sits in power come this January. What kind of a parliament is it going to make? How attached are people going to feel towards a parliament when most of its constituent members aren't picked by them. In all likelihood, the remaining members will be elected by an insignificant number of voters. Fear of violence and despair over political gloom will seriously impair voter turnout.
So what kind of a government we're going to get? Democracy refers to the style of government where people rule their own country instead of a monarchy, dictatorship or an oligarchy. The republic refers to a style of government where the country belongs not to a monarch, king, emperor or sultan but to its people. Thus, it's not just who runs the country but also who owns it that distinguishes a democracy from a republic. For example, the United Kingdom is a democracy but it's not a republic. Everything is technically owned by the Queen and everything is done in Tier Majesty's name.
That's why every democracy is a republic, not every republic is a democracy. Nazi Germany, the People's Republic of Ghina, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are examples of countries, which aren't democracies in the true sense of the word but they can be called republics since they don't have monarchs and elections are held at regular intervals. North Korea is doubly misleading in its title. A democratic people's republic ruled by hereditary rulers is disappointingly neither.
Where do we stand in the scheme of things? If the results of the perfunctory elections stick, what'll more than half the unelected-elected lawmakers make of their victory? What'll be the emerging style of government? Can it be called a democracy, or can it be even called a republic?
What'll happen to the aspirations of people who didn't have a chance to go to the polls and elect the candidates of their choice? How will the unilaterally elected lawmakers cope with their effortless wins after they got themselves auto-elected? Why should they owe obeisance to their constituencies when victory has been artificially inseminated?
A democracy runs on the principle contrary to term deposits. An elected government on maturity can't be rolled over with a standing instruction. Some people argue that there's no legal barrier to uncontested elections. They also argue if we can accept it when one candidate wins uncontested, why can't we accept if the number is more. They don't realise that legality isn't always the sure test of propriety. It’s for the same reason overeating is harmful without being unlawful.
In our quest for freedom and democracy, the one-sided election has brought a new low to our self-esteem. Like two wrongs don't make a right, railroaded elections can't be justified because the opposition has been ramrod arrogant. The government has been cutting off the nose to spite the face. Every uncontested winner declared is scraping a layer of its reputation like peeling reduces an onion.
In a curious way soon we're going to get a level playing field. The ruling party after the sham elections will hardly have any moral edge left over the opposition. It has always boasted of being a political party that has led the Liberation War and come to power by legitimate means.
Keeping an ear to the ground, it'll hear how it has been impairing its integrity. Can the spirit of the Liberation War give it enough moral ground? It's likely that overdrawing on this national ethos will wear it down. In the past, others tried it with religion only to fall fiat on their faces. Forced to choose without a choice, here is a twist to democracy. It has been driving the demos crazy.