Bangladesh’s politicians must heed the lessons of Pakistan’s struggle between authoritarianism and democracy. Democracy is simply not rule by the majority. Nor is it the mere fulfillment of constitutional technicalities, as has been done by the Bangladesh president, while disregarding the spirit of constitutionalism. Efforts by any political party to create a permanent majority through constitutional and political maneuvers are only likely to undermine the democratic political system. Given the affinity of Bangladeshis to democracy, any derailment of the consensus system of government would only plunge Bangladesh deep into a state of crisis and confrontation.

Winds of Change in Bangladesh - For Better or for Worse?

Bangladesh Democracy Under Threat

Gulf News, The Nation (Pakistan), Oman Tribune November 29, 2006

By: Husain Haqqani
Husain Haqqani is currently Director of Boston University’s Center for International Relations, and author of the book ‘Pakistan between Mosque and Military’. He served as Pakistan’s Ambassador to Sri Lanka and was spokesperson for both Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif & Benazir Bhutto

Political polarization is at its peak in Bangladesh ahead of forthcoming parliamentary elections. Democracy has worked in Bangladesh, albeit in a flawed manner, since the toppling of General Ershad’s military regime in 1990. Then, a popular uprising led by civilian politicians forced a uniformed coup-maker out of power. Bitterness between the country’s two major political parties, the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has periodically hampered effective governance over the last 16 years. But power has alternated between the two parties through regular elections and by and large democratic freedoms have been respected. A unique constitutional arrangement requiring the creation of a neutral caretaker government to conduct elections has so far ensured that the results of elections are accepted by all concerned.

The tradition of rotation of power through elections, which has been completely missing in Pakistan’s unfortunate history, is now under threat in Bangladesh. The BNP, which wielded power from 2001, is currently being accused by the Awami League of attempting to fix the forthcoming polls. The outgoing ruling party is said to have added hundreds of thousands of phantom voters to the electoral rolls.

The caretaker government formed at the end of BNP’s term is not seen universally as neutral. The constitution requires the appointment of a retired Chief Justice as Chief Adviser who acts as head of government in the caretaker set-up. But Bangladesh’s president, a BNP man, has appointed himself as the country’s Chief Executive, resting on constitutional provisions allowing him to name someone else to the job if a former Supreme Court Chief Justice does not accept it. The absurdity of the president being his own Chief Adviser seems to have made little difference.

Bangladesh became independent of Pakistan in 1971 after a shared history of less than a quarter century partly because of Bengali Muslims’ aversion to the machinations of Pakistan’s Punjab-dominated viceregal elite. As Pakistanis, the people of East Bengal were always in the forefront of campaigns demanding democracy for Pakistan. The Bengalis had played a leading role in securing Pakistan. Their enthusiasm for the idea of Pakistan came to a tragic end because of the arrogant disregard for the popular will that was displayed by Pakistan’s Civil-Military bureaucracy, which had taken over running of Pakistan within a few years of independence.

Given the Bengali Muslims’ commitment to popular politics, Bangladesh should have been an example for Pakistan. There are many Pakistanis who respect Bangladesh’s struggle for independence and admire the contribution of Bangladeshis to the struggle for Pakistan as well as for their struggle for democracy. We are now worried about current trends in Bangladesh that can best be described as a gradual Pakistanization of Bangladeshi Politics. Bangladesh’s democracy seemed to have recovered from the military coups of General Ziaur Rehman and General Hussein Mohamed Ershad; its enemy now seems to be the winner-take-all mentality of some elements within the political class that enabled the Pakistani military to dominant the political system.

Bangladesh’s politicians must heed the lessons of Pakistan’s struggle between authoritarianism and democracy. Democracy is simply not rule by the majority. Nor is it the mere fulfillment of constitutional technicalities, as has been done by the Bangladesh president, while disregarding the spirit of constitutionalism. Efforts by any political party to create a permanent majority through constitutional and political maneuvers are only likely to undermine the democratic political system. Given the affinity of Bangladeshis to democracy, any derailment of the consensus system of government would only plunge Bangladesh deep into a state of crisis and confrontation.

Democracy requires, above all, acceptance of pluralism by all the players in the political arena. Instead of pursuing the ethic of war that requires elimination of the adversary, politicians in a democracy must adopt the ethics of sport involving playing a good game and then congratulating the winner. Real democrats are as ready to lose as they are willing and desirous of winning. Losing one day to win another is an integral part of the idea of democracy.

Begum Khaleda Zia and Begum Hasina Wajed should heed the lesson learnt belatedly by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The two former Pakistani prime ministers worked out a “Charter for Democracy” recently several years after being exiled as a result of military rule. For almost a decade, Pakistan’s politics remained polarized between Ms Bhutto and Mr. Sharif. Machinations by the country’s invisible government, comprising intelligence operatives, prevented the two civilian leaders from cooperating in building lasting democratic institutions.

Like Begum Zia in Bangladesh today, Mr. Sharif tried to re-write the rules of the political game to the detriment of Ms Bhutto while he was in power. Ms Bhutto, too, did not bridge the divide with her opponent during her terms of office, which were cut short each time by the establishment’s pseudo-constitutional interventions.

In addition to the major political parties’ confrontation, Bangladesh is also witnessing an upsurge in violence by militant Islamists. Like Pakistan, political Islamists have become disproportionately empowered as BNP and its predecessor military rulers sought legitimacy through Islamic slogans. Islamic political parties have a legitimate political role in any predominantly Muslim country provided they operate within the framework of the country’s constitution. Democrats should not allow dictatorships to legitimize themselves through irresponsible import of extreme ideology and the acceptance of radicalization for short-term gains.

Pakistan’s promotion of religious hardliners in return for aid and madrassa funding has not had positive results. The country is still reeling from the blowback of two decades of involvement with Jihads in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Pakistan’s military leadership embraced Islamist militancy in its quest of “fighting Indian dominance in the region.” But the disproportionate empowerment of Islamists, and tolerance of Islamist militancy, has done little to diminish Indian power and much to undermine Pakistan’s stability. The political leadership of Bangladesh should avoid a similar pitfall in the name of containing Indian influence.

At a Conference on Bangladesh held in London and organized by the British think tank, Policy Exchange, and the U.S. think tank, Hudson Institute, I emphasized the need for consensus between the Awami League and the BNP on the following five points: (1) Rebuild Bangladeshi democracy by ensuring free and fair elections and observance of the constitution in letter and spirit; (2) Contain Radical Islam through democratic means. This would return Bangladesh’s Islamists to their fringe or minority status, taking away the disproportionate power they have now acquired; (3) Avoid the temptation of tolerating or accepting radical Islamist ideology as a pressure tactic in settling political conflicts within the country, for example BNP painting the Awami League as Hindu agents; (4) Shun the temptation to look upon Radical Islamists as an instrument of foreign policy, such as containment of India; (5) Make a distinction between piety and Islamic observances, on the one hand, and radical or violent invocations of Islam on the other.