& 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

PLAYING SOLITAIRE in a parliamentary democracy

Ziauddin Choudhury
DEMOCRACY in a one-party state may sound like an oxymoron, but such a thing does exist in our known world. In a singleparty state only one political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution, or by diktat. Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system that, unlike the single-party state, allows (at least nominally) democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning the elections.
In modern times, apart from the communist regimes that dominated half of Europe, and a large part of Asia for the past six decades, there were noncommunist countries that had democracy in their constitutions, but in practice a single party ruled either because the constitution prescribed so, or the rulers coerced their way to establish a single party rule. Best examples of one party state, some de jure and some de facto, in the recent past were Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Egypt in the Middle East, and a majority of countries in Africa that witnessed the largest cohorts of rulers with highest longevity because they effectively established one-party system through coercion and election manipulation. And there are other examples of a one-party system that seems to be effective, at least so far. That is the rule by religious diktat, the way the clerics run Iran now. Although they are subject to election, these are all within the framework of Islamic provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council.
Democracy in western countries is often viewed as black or white, either you have it or you don't. You have democracy only when people are free to vote, free to speak or write, and have recourse to law when any of these is
infringed. You do not have democracy in a country when any or all of these conditions are absent. There is nothing known as quasi-democracy. Yet, we have countries that declare that they have constitutions that provide for democracy and democratically elected governments that have been voted to power by people. However, the means by which such elections are held or how the constitution is often bent to suit a purpose are as murky as the ways such governments operate.
ically elected government.
There are two ways to circumvent this; one is to tweak the constitution to make way for a single party rule. This was done by Saddam Hussain in Iraq and Hafez Assad in Syria to make only one party eligible to take part in elections. The other, and perhaps more prevalent way to one-party domination is marginalisation of opposition either through coercion and intimidation, or by gradual assimilation. The moral aspect of this second method may be
Establishing a one-party rule in either a communist regime or semi-theocratic regime is a no-brainer. The system of government allows only accommodation of people who subscribe and owe their allegiance to the ideology of that country. It is also fairly easy to have a single party in dictatorial regimes where one person decides the fate of that country. It becomes rather tricky to develop a one-party rule where the constitution provides for democracy and a democrat-
questioned, but it is most effective and desirable for the ruling party. One, on the surface it lets the government function under the illusion of popular mandate (because the opposition is either absent or totally weakened), and second, the opportunity to demonstrate internally and externally that it has not officially declared itself to be the only political party that is allowed to operate in the country.
Elections in a democracy are a nor-
mal affair; all governments irrespective of whether they pay lip service to democracy or genuinely practice it do have elections. The elections are a stamp of approval from the populace that a government seeks. The difference is how they win this stamp of approval from people. In a single party state the approval is a mere formality, in a multi-party state it is a contest. In his quest for legitimacy, President Ziaur Rahman first held a referendum on his government. When the referendum led to embarrassingly high number of votes in his favour (because there was no opposition), he later held a Presidential election inviting opponents, some with cash incentives. Our later history would tell how we had de facto one party rule as many of our politicians thronged to forge political alliance with the military rulers for much of the seventies and all of eighties.
True democracy thrives when people can make choices from different parties. Unfettered rule of one party can bring relief and prosperity to the ruling party, but it may not bring prosperity and peace for the people in the long run. We do not have to cite the hackneyed expression that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but we have seen enough of it in the past to say that absence of opposition in a democracy is not a good omen for the future of a country or its people. There are many ways to weaken the opposition, but the best one is not by annihilating it completely. The correct way to nurture democracy, if we believe in it, is to have everyone a say in the way people are governed, and encourage everyone to take part in the governance process. For that everyone need not be a part of the government or the ruling party. The voice of opposition need not be always destructive; it can be a voice of reason, and a voice for keeping the country on the right path.
The writer Is a political analyst and commentator.