& 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

STRATEGICALLY SPEAKING

Defending democracy: Put the trust in the people

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd)
IT is ritualistic for the Prime Minister to address the senior officers of the Army every year, she being the defence minister as well. And this she does as a curtain raiser to the promotion board meeting at the AHQ. While her address to the senior army officers on Feb 9 may have been an annual event and considered as routine, the substance of her remarks has caught our attention because of the profound significance of the message therein.
What is significant is not that she speaks of the need to retain the trend of democracy in the country, that is the pious hope of every citizen of the country, but that she reposes the task of doing so in the army, as one of the defenders of democracy, and the Constitution. Let me reproduce the relevant part of her statement that appeared in this paper on Feb 10 under the caption, "Armed forces must keep vigil." She said, "The armed forces must remain vigilant and be ready to face any threat and uphold the democratic trend and the constitution." She recognised the fact that, "the Bangladesh Army alongside other law enforcement agencies had played a significant role in successfully holding the election."
This is not the first time that the PM's trust in the military as 'defender of democracy' has been publicly articulated, and the defenders of the nation's frontiers reminded of it. In fact she made the same call last year on 3 Feb at the same forum which merits reproduction too. It was reported that Sheikh Hasina directed the senior army officials to, "resist any antidemocratic and anti-constitutional activity for continuation of the country's development. Stay alert so that no vested quarter can disrupt the country's forward march riding over the army's back." That was perhaps the first time that an elected head of the government had invoked the army in such a way to play a role in safeguarding democracy.
It is quite unique for politicians to put their trust in the Khaki to protect democracy, particularly in Bangladesh where the consequences of the efforts of men in uniform to 'save democracy’ is only too well known. In the past in this very column, we had stated that the motive behind placing upon institutions responsibilities that they are neither trained to perform nor designed to fulfill, and which is the primary responsibility of the people and politicians to ensure, may be open to misinterpretation, and more so at a time when the country has just emerged from a traumatic period of political violence, all for the sake of democracy.
New cliches have appeared immediately pre and post the much criticised election of Jan 5. We are told, by those that wanted to hold the elections at any cost without realising that the plea of constitutional compulsion was a fig leaf of an excuse, that a bad election was better than no election. They extended the argument further by saying that bad democracy was better than no democracy. That is where the perfectionists would differ because none of these two very essential elements of democracy can work in less than full measure. It is like pregnancy, one cannot be half pregnant. A bad democracy cannot be an alternative for no democracy because both make good governance dysfunctional. I leave it to the readers to make up their own mind on the state of democracy prevalent in the country.
But be that as it may, to repose in the military the task of protecting democracy is a misplaced idea that stimulates several questions. First, who will decide that democracy is in danger? Is it for the army to do so? And should it be in danger, what mechanism does the army have to uphold democracy?
However, as for the Constitution, the army officers are oath bound to defend the constitution at all cost, and they do so by following the legal orders of the government of the day. And the other stated job is to defend the country. In this regard one would have liked the PM to much rather remind the army to keep its stated remit and oath in mind.
As for democracy, it is best defended by those it is meant for, the people, as we have seen done so many times in the past in this country. Democracy is best served by keeping people's interest foremost, by ensuring rule of law and by avoiding duplicity, by strengthening the democratic institutions, and according the people the right and freedom to choose their own representatives. That is the best defence for democracy.
The author is, Editor, Op-ed and Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star