Fri 27 Apr 2007
[Dear friends: A superb post by the newest DP blogger Jyoti and another equally amazing write up by our own Asif has sparked up a much needed discussion on the real obligations of democracy and a true representation of society. With an intention to keep up the discussion on democracy, in this 'Democracy series', I intend to repost some older write ups as well as come up with some new. I'll start with this post which was written during last days of BNP government. Re-reading it now, I hope, will help us grab the real value of a democratic society.
Sincerely: RA ]
****************************************
Doomed Democracy?
Let’s start with USA, the icon of democracy. The president of this country was initially elected by a Supreme Court decision, not by public vote. And although it was a head to head election, the person bagging more votes did not win the election. And over the last six years, on the plea of war against terrorism, basic principles of democracy and liberty are being compromised one after another.
Then go to UK, the birth place of this industrialized democratic civilization. The elected prime minister is more influenced by a leader of a different country on the other side of the Atlantic than his own constituency and his own colleagues in the parliament.
In the rest of the democratic Europe, conservative, more authoritative hawkish parties are winning the election.
A man is ruling a continent called Australia and he is also apparently more inclined to appease the king of world than his own people.
Democracy in the rest of the world ie.e most of Africa and Asia is nothing but joke. In most cases there is a monarchy running in the name of democracy, notable among these dynasty are the Nehru Dynasty of India, Lee dynasty of Singapore, the Chakri dynasty of Thailand, Sukorno dynasty of Indonesia, with here and there some half hearted experiments of democracy ( Japan, Korea, New Zealand, south Africa etc.)
And now lets zoom in to Bangladesh.
For their ruler, the three options people of Bangladesh have to choose from are either, Hasina and Joy- the daughter and the grandson; Khaleda and Tareque-widow and the son; or an ambitious army general.
In the middle ages, ruler used to be decided by palace politics and usually at the cost of some royal blood. Now a days, rulers and ruling family are decided by street politics and at the cost of some subjects’ life.
And at the end of the day, be it Tareque, Joy or Ershad, there will basically be no difference in the life of people except a handful.
Malaysia and Mahathir is probably the most frequently quoted words in our political tea cup storm. Mahathir himself was never an icon of democracy, he was an authoritarian leader.
In fact there is no moral high ground in supporting a corrupt son or a disconnected grandson for the sake of democracy than a general or an authoritative ruler.
********************************
Despite all these depressing facts, there is definitely a moral high ground in supporting democracy. This democracy is not about selecting the family who will occupy the palace and exploit the subjects. This democracy is about social justice, the freedom of speech. Because we have democracy, I can write this blog without fear, because there is democracy, I can watch what I watch in TV news, because there is democracy, there is finally an agreement about the garments workers minimum wages, because there is democracy 4th largest national Bank, Rupali goes to the real highest bidder, because there is democracy poeple like Anu Muhamamd can speak out loud against Fulbari oppression, becasue there is democracy Golam Rabbani finally comes out victorious in Kansat, because there is democracy, people in Bangladesh have a hope, the hope for better days. People under communist regime in East Europe didn’t even have any hope.
There are many reasons to be hopeful of my friends.
Failure of leadership does not make the system a failure. Islam is in the wrong hands now-a-days, it does not mean that Islam is all bad. Similarly, there is no reason to denounce democracy because the custodians have failed to perform.
Let’s try to separate democracy from the people who abuse it.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Well I don’t believe in So Called Anti Dynasty Business.
In Singapore here People even don’t bother
why Brig Lee is elected and if he is son of
the father of the Nation or not.
There is nothing wrong in Democracy.But one analysis should be there how much Compatibility we people do have with the Democracy, Other wise people like Motiur Rahman and Jillur Rahman (Tritio Matra)
should not advocating for the Generals on
the name of clean up.
Asif has posted one Nice comments in the blog of Rubel about the Dr Debopriya Bhattacharjee.
Dr Kamal and Dr Bhattacharjee speaks about honest
candidate from the heart. But there are lots of people who loves to take the advantages
of Such efforts and It is become controversial end of the day. Any way To Respected Blogers try to visit my small Blog
if possible-
http://journey2infinitive.blogspot.com/.
If you get time , try to post comments.
Many thanks and warmest Regards
April 27th, 2007 at 6:25 am
UK and Aussi PM might not listen to their own country men, but they do work for the best interest for their country. UK and Aussies have benefited more from the US than most other countries. And even in US, the jury is still out there, if Gore won, then how come he didn’t even win his home state; if Bush stole the election, then how come the electorate did not punish him.
“Because we have democracy, I can write this blog without fear”; so can Iranians
“because there is democracy, I can watch what I watch in TV news” so can people in China.
“because there is democracy, there is finally an agreement about the garments workers minimum wages” so can people in Pakistan
“because there is democracy 4th largest national Bank, Rupali goes to the real highest bidder”, I don’t think Saudi money is a good standard for market price, in real capitalism
“because there is democracy poeple like Anu Muhamamd can speak out loud against Fulbari oppression, becasue there is democracy Golam Rabbani finally comes out victorious in Kansat”, you see real democracy allow flamboyant oppression in the first place.
“because there is democracy, people in Bangladesh have a hope, the hope for better days” so do Chinese, North Korea, etc
You see just because you enjoy such privilege, does not make a democracy. People living in authoritarian regimes nowadays enjoy those privileges too.
The real litmus test for modern democracy are:
1)Freedom of press. Are journalist capable of accusing governments without getting attacked?
2) Is there freedom of speech? Can a Bangladeshi curse any religion publicly and still be safe?
3) Bill of rights. Can we provide basic human rights.
4) Protection of minority: Are minorities attacked, persecuted, discriminated? Is the percentage of minorities decreasing or increasing?
5) Independent, free and fair judiciary. Can the extreme poor sue the extreme rich and win?
6) Does accused have legal venue to have council and defend?
7) Is there free and fair election?
9) Is there a valid, powerful opposition party?
9) Are the elected, representative for the welfare of the country?
10) Are the elected, representative of the people, by the people, for the people?
Its true that Bangladeshis enjoy lot more freedom, than other countries, but thats because of culture(21s Feb, 1971 war) not because of democracy.
You cannot jump to no. 10 without fixing no. 1-9. Thats why I welcome CTG to carry out much needed reform. This just might be the last chance before BD goes down in spiral, specially post 9/11 world. In this world you succeed or face catastrophic failure. We can be like USA, China, India, Singapore or we can be like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. We can learn from there failure or we can let history repeat itself.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Hasi, good 10 commandments for democracy. These should be a good benchmark, gonotontrer mapkatthi, the democracy-meter for diagnosing its condition.
There is a very common failure to differentiate between a civilian govt and a democratic one. A country can have civilian govt for decades, without having democracy. Civilian govts can be dictatorial and tyrannical too, if those requirements are abused.
Bangladesh in past 15 years would also have failed that test. There were civilian govts alright, with two rival groups alternating, but how much democracy was there?
Mucho nada - not much!
April 27th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Before we get back to the same argument of failed democracy in Bangladesh, I suggest we re-read Jyoti’s post again which spectacularly issued most of the argument against democracy.
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/04/26/on-democracy/
April 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Too often, I think, people think of democracy as being generated by the government - a top down approach. But I believe this is misguided. Democracy must rise from the bottom up, from a democratic citizenry will come a democratic government.
This does not mean that people should ignore an undemocratic government’s abuse, no that people should rise up in arms against an undemocratic government. I simply mean that the more people expect certain rights and freedoms, the more likely they are to manifest.
In the U.S., democracy is actually pretty new and, really, it is still a goal we are working towards. Just ask women, who could not vote until the 1920’s, or blacks, whose civil rights were denied until the 1970’s.
I think that the future of Bangladesh looks bright, not because of the current political climate, but because of what I see and hear from the youth - a hope and a belief in their right to be the masters of their own lives and their own nation.
Freedom is not something that can be denied for long. The human spirit is stronger than the master’s chains.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
1. Public freedom of suing labeled journalist for lying and creating false stories causing harm to individuals.
2. Freedom of practicing my religion and faith without being cursed at.
3. Freedom of speaking against those who creates falsehood and infinite meaningless, unachievable logical perceptions.
4. Freedom of deciding culture & faith I want to practice with out being demonized or being compared with some God-European system & other nations.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
>>The president of this country was initially elected by a Supreme Court decision, not by public vote. >>
That is incorrect. Bush was elected by public vote but because of Florida, it had to be decided in court.
Yes, Gore had more public votes than Bush but that does not matter in the electoral college system of US.
You can argue that Americans are stupid to elect a person like Bush two times, but that is another issue.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
To Assad
“1. Public freedom of suing labeled journalist for lying and creating false stories causing harm to individuals.”
There are already legal venue for that, but that right should be curtailed, the press should be free from providing strong legal proof. Or else we would have no need for journalist, our court would suffice. Its because the courts, govt. fails, we need the press
“2. Freedom of practicing my religion and faith without being cursed at.”
So what if you religion calls for genocide, blowing up people, female circumcision? You should have freedom of religion but others must have the freedom to criticize you.
“3. Freedom of speaking against those who creates falsehood and infinite meaningless, unachievable logical perceptions.”
Whose stopping you?
“4. Freedom of deciding culture & faith I want to practice with out being demonized or being compared with some God-European system & other nations.”
So you want to curtail other peoples right to criticize you, your culture and faith. You want your freedom at the expense of someone else’s freedom.
A civilized society is not beyond or afraid of criticism. As a matter of fact, ability to criticize is a very important reason to get freedom.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Among these very intriguing and informative discussions, one thing was not addressed to its full extent – the role of economics in determining the success and failure of a political system. The political and economic system of a country is inextricably associated and hence, cannot be separated or judged independently. The socio-economic make up of a population/country in many ways justifies a certain political model which can be totally unacceptable in another population. For example, the authoritarian/benevolent autocratic/ oligarchic democratic models that were deemed so successful in countries like Malaysia, Taiwan, or Singapore will not be welcomed at all in western/developed countries. In developing/underdeveloped countries, there always seem to be a ‘tradeoff’ between economic wellbeing /development and democratic rights until a saturation point is reached. Mahathir, though an authoritarian, remained unopposed for a long period as gradual economic development provided people with their basic human rights. Once that was ensured, people wanted more democratic rights and opposition started to build against Mahathir. But whether this ‘tradeoff’ is necessary or not is a matter of discussion.
Another question that comes to my mind is, ‘Does democracy = social equality = human rights?’. I guess not . In United States, where a democratic political system embraces a capitalist economic model, the social and economic disparity is shocking. There is a gulf of difference between the filthy rich and the fatally poor. According to a recent report, a person works 40 hours a week @ a minimum wage will be below the poverty level. That is a sign of extreme social inequality and a violation of human rights to me. This is what you expect to see in a capitalist society or so I have been told. The European models are known to have lesser disparities. I am no expert and may be somebody qualified enough will shed some light on this.
The above mentioned models may not be warranted/suitable for Bangladesh. We may indeed need to come up with ‘our own model’ of democracy preserving the basic democratic principles. Our good old ‘democracy’ needs a hiding and democratic processes and style of democratic governance needs to be reformed. Reiterating my thoughts from another thread– ‘a democratic election alone does not constitute democracy. It is the democratic processes and institutions that determine the quality of democracy in a country. In Bangladesh, most of the democratic institutions are corrupt from top to bottom and democratic processes are manipulated by the government in power and major political parties at every administrative and socio-political level. Majority/large share of our voters are bribed, coerced, or brainwashed by the political leaders and their lackeys. The governments from 1991-2005 were democratically elected but not democratic governments.’ Reform should come at every level and changes should be brought in in the context of the political and economic system that benefits the majority and propels economic development. Democracy is all about ‘freedom of choice’, it needs to provide the people with options to choose from and should have checks and balances so that the socially and economically disadvantaged cannot be manipulated. If implemented, the proposed reforms (separation of judiciary from executive, separation of EC secretariat from government, caps on election expenditure, barring convicts from participating in elections, democratic processes within political parties, balance of power between the president and the prime minister, 3-yr mandatory recess between retirement and running for office, etc.) will definitely be an improvement of prevailing democracy but whether that will be enough remains to be seen.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:22 am
The traditional democracy is the best of currently available and practiced systems of governement. But it has a dire necessity to be updated and refined. It has some defaulted defects especially election process. Most countries even in the west we now hear the complaints of rigging. We have seen in the USA and more recently in Italy. And it’s almost universal phenomena in countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Many countries engage in in-fights between the contending parties leading to cancellation of election result and then reelection, civil war or military interventions. If not the turmoil is at the beginning, power-fight starts after a while the wining party assumes the power. Many a times elected governments turn to autocracracy or oligarchy and indulge in corruption. This is the common scenario.
This kind perptual problem of democracy in the underdeveloped or developing countries clearly indicates the dire need of alternative system of government or tailoring democracy based on tradition, culture, socio-economic, religio-geographical backgrounds.
Democracy is not anything like human or animals born of own mother’s womb with distinct features like one mouth, two lips, one nose, two eyes, two ears, one head, 4 limbs, etc. Even for those animals, they can be crossed, cloned, modified or enriched by many scientific methods for better quality or yeild.
Then why democracy can’t be own-brad, home-grown and customized to the country’s need?
As the western democracy is not fail-safe, why we can’t be creative, ingenious to innovate a super-democracy?
I think, we should encourage DMY or even GMUA after his retirement to take the challenge of super deomcracy to get rid of failing traditional democracy disfigured/diseased by dynasty heirachy.
Thanks.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
On 30 November last year, the Economist Intelligence Unit published a report called index of democracies in which it ranks full democracies, flawed democracies, “hybrid systems” and authoritarian regimes. Read the report here:http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf