/ Quest for democracy: Bangladesh at crossroads again

More than half a century after its independence, Bangladesh still finds itself at the crossroads of crafting a state built on durable democratic foundations. Despite having been at the same crossroads twice before, democracy remains elusive, or rather ruling governments have prevented democratic ideals or institutions from taking root.
In fact, successive governments have amended the constitution, manipulated loopholes, politicised the administration and influenced the judiciary for political expedience with deliberate determination. In the process, the institutions which lend credence to elected public representatives and strengthen democracy have been ruined. Whether law enforcement or judiciary, whether the Election Commission or the Anti-Corruption Commission, they hardly enjoy the confidence of the people. Even the press and media establishments have lost the trust they used to enjoy once.
This had been most rampant during the last 15 years when former prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League regime completely obliterated every last vestige of democratic principles. It had systematically decimated the institutions primarily with two intertwined goals of holding on to power and amassing wealth. Towards that end, the Awami League corrupted, throttled, bludgeoned, disappeared and, as everyone realised, killed without compunction. When the former prime minister flew away, she had left a government rotting at every pore.
It is no surprise then that Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus instituted six reform commissions for the judiciary, police, election system, administration, the national corruption watchdog and the constitution. These are at the very heart of a democratic dispensation and in much need of reform, if not an overhaul. Those recommendations and the following public consultations, however, would be the easy part.
One need only recall the fate of the tri-partite roadmap that reflected a political compact of three major coalitions that united to topple the regime of military dictator HM Ershad. To say that subsequent governments diverged from the democratic spirit of the roadmap would be a gross understatement. The more difficult part of crafting a truly democratic state entails a robust adoption of the core democratic principles among the stakeholders where Bangladesh keeps failing.
The rule of the majority has typically been taken to mean the primacy of the majority. Protection of minorities is taken to mean measures – so long as they do not inconvenience the majority – for only those groups that the majority wishes to recognise. Minorities must include not just the religious minority, but also the ethnic minority, the gender and sexual minority, the social and cultural minority that would include people with disabilities as well as people with differences.
But even as the interim government strives towards those ideals, there are stirrings that do not bode well. Any remote association with the previous regime is cast in bad light. It appears almost as a matter of ritualistic response to oppose all that the Awami League championed and embrace all that it shunned. Only a month ago people wishing to observe the death anniversary of Bangladesh’s founding president were barred, manhandled and beaten away.
While one party is free to conduct its activities despite being widely recognised as an active opponent of Bangladesh’s Liberation War, the one that stewarded it has been turned into a pariah. Even an adviser of the interim government indicated that the ruling party of the last 15 years must face trial before the resumption of its activities. That also implies a temporary disenfranchisement of at least a fourth, if not a third, of the electorate.
Even as there are talks about reforming the Anti-Corruption Commission, which was used as a political tool, the graft watchdog has initiated cases against 42 former ministers, state ministers and MPs in one fell swoop. Government agencies and autonomous organisations are being purged of people perceived to be sympathisers of one party only to be replaced by seemingly vocal advocates of another political party, all in the name of cleansing.
These do not make for the right ingredients to build a solid foundation of a durable democracy. A cornerstone of democracy ought to be tolerance. And genuine tolerance can only be tested when the most revolting, the most repugnant are not only accommodated but also protected. Democracy must mean the accommodation of every exception and respect for anyone’s right to say, “No”. It must mean everyone’s right to pick up a stick and stand across the street with outstretched arms and shout ourselves hoarse, without fear, without persecution, without being shot.