Democracy Without Teeth

In a way, there is one simple reason behind our failure to take necessary steps to consolidate democracy (even when we make a short-lived transition) --  we rely and embrace a very limited and narrow definition of democracy where alternation of power is considered as the key ingredient.

The idea is simple -- if we can have regular elections allowing citizens to choose their representatives, we are all done.

This understanding has two problems -- first of all, since the whole exercise of democracy relies on having a free, fair and regular election, the incentive for the ruling party to jeopardize the electoral system is quite strong, as the only obstacle behind the sustenance of a winner-takes-all system is that system.

Secondly, this narrow and incomplete version of democracy doesn’t offer any incentive for the political parties to establish a liberal democratic political order and, as such, there can’t be any consolidation of democracy.

Politics remains a zero-sum game and in the absence of active and effective institutions of accountability that should work as an effective check on executive dominance, liberal democracy remains an illusion and democratic backsliding remains a real possibility.

This is why the institutions of accountability are necessary. The government, which is a necessary evil, will always be eager to encroach rights, to engage in corruption and the stronger the executive is, the more it is prone to embracing authoritarian tendencies. The antonym of a strong government in the context of Bangladesh is not a weak government -- instead it is an accountable government.

Ensuring accountability is the key, and a state cannot design a system, cannot create an institutional design where the only protection is a party's or an individual’s goodwill. A state’s guiding operational principle cannot be to be ruled by the angels.

BNP has decided to let almost 20 ordinances lapse and these include -- the Human Rights Commission Ordinance, the Police Commission Ordinance, the Anti Corruption Commission Ordinance, and other ordinances that would establish an independent secretariat for the Judiciary and ensure a non-partisan appointment of judges.

Now, why did the party decide to do that? So far the only explanation that we have got is that there were ‘problems' or ‘issues’ related to these that need to be fixed. Fair enough. But that explanation is meaningless unless the ruling party explains what those problems are. They don’t agree with the appointment process? Is that it? If so, why?

The ordinance gave the Human Rights Commission significant power to take action against the government machineries if and when they violate human rights. Do they have an issue with that? Let’s not forget -- we did have a Human Rights Commission which was graded quite badly by the international organization because it had no teeth.

This ordinance tried to rectify that. Does the ruling party have a problem with that? If so, what is that problem? Similarly, the ordinance also empowered the Anti-Corruption Commission significantly. Does the ruling party have a problem with that? Bringing about some sort of discipline in the recruitment, promotion and transfer in the law enforcement agencies have been key demands of different actors.

The Police Commission Ordinance tried to address that. Does the government have a problem with that?

Simply saying that these ordinances have problems without specifically mentioning these problems is not enough. It can never be enough.

Because it kind of reminds us of BNP’s earlier understanding that it considers institutions of accountability as ‘executive institutions’ and believes that they need a strong government which should remain beyond the check of these institutions.

A party that says that it believes in the principles of liberal democracy cannot take actions to undermine institutions that are usually established to protect democracy. It just doesn’t work that way.

More importantly, at this particular point in time when principles of direct democracy are being ignored, if we can’t even have a liberal democratic order, there won’t be any institutionalization of democracy.

The democratic political history of Bangladesh shows that the political parties have always opted for the false start and the wrong lessons. There was no reason for BNP to manipulate the Magura-2 by-election in 1994 as it wouldn’t have changed the parliamentary majority and the party still opted for that which eventually legitimized the whole CTG movement. There were no efforts to establish strong institutions.

The outcome? The electoral process remained vulnerable and the AL, after coming into power, violated the seniority principle of appointing the Chief Justice to have its own preferred individual as the head of CTG. False start followed by another false start. That effort failed. And what did the next party in power learn?

The wrong lesson --  they focused on not protecting the integrity of the electoral system but tried to make sure that they could do a better job in spoiling the system. When that backfired, the next party also didn’t learn the right lesson and instead got rid of the whole caretaker government system laying the foundation of an authoritarian rule.

Our political history is the history of false starts and wrong lessons and this is how we run the state. This is not surprising and in fact, this is what we know as the ‘increasing return’ in historical institutionalism -- “the benefits of a particular institutional path grow over time the more that path is followed, making it progressively harder to reverse course”.

False start followed by false start makes it easier to learn the wrong lessons which eventually led us to 2024. So, I do apologize if I can’t trust a ruling party when they refuse to clarify their stance.

We had a chance in 2024. It could be our critical juncture when the pathway can be finally reversed. It was possible and it’s still possible but once again, unless the ruling party doesn’t show me its hand, or doesn’t show the cards it is holding, I will remain skeptical.

And finally, dear esteemed members of the civil society, you should be skeptical with all these efforts. You are not supposed to keep your mouth shut. Remember, how in the past you tried a Faustian bargain which caused a great deal of problem? Don’t get involved with another bargain -- it doesn’t work.

You are a watchdog, if you can’t grow some teeth, at least bark a little. 

Asif M Shahan is Professor in the Department of Development Studies at University of Dhaka.