neither demos nor cracy

8/14/2019 Neither Demos nor Cracy

1/8

NEITHER DEMOS NOR CRACY

Democracy, as they mean, is rule by people whereas the Greek

writers used demos to mean many, thus meaning Democracy rule

by many. In Greece these many were conscious citizens; not mere

illiterate, powerless, poor people, who were ignorant of their rights and

obligations. People were viewed as a single cohesive body, bound

together by common and collective interests. As human beings theywere one and indivisible and so democracy stood for the disadvantage

masses. Democracy implies: people govern themselves by participatingin making the crucial decisions that structure their lives and determine

the fate of their society by means of direct participation, continuous

involvement in decision making through open discussion, mass

meeting and interaction. Present day democracy does not stand for the

disadvantaged and the powerless poor. It comes to mean strict

application of the principle of majority rule overriding the minority or

even totally ignoring them. People do not make decision by

themselves, nor do they influence decision making. What they can at

best do is kick the rascal out after the stipulated period of time. Thatis also, sometimes, not possible due to socio-economic factor that rules

family and social life. In western democracy there is educated and

conscious people and a long tradition of exercising democratic rightsof direct democracy through mass meeting, rallies, protest

demonstration and an independent ever alert media. But in the

underdeveloped third world countries no political equality exists.

Democracy means nothing more than ritualised submission to the will

of all-powerful leader who take it granted that the people lack

education, experience and wisdom necessary to frame politics and to

execute those. The purpose of democracy in western practiseddemocracy is to establish through some process of popular

participation, a framework of laws within which individuals can

conduct their own affairs and carry on their private as well as

community interests. It democratizes the political, social and economic

life. In the third world underdeveloped countries it neitherdemocratizes political, social or economic life nor it democratizes

opportunities, and means to avail those opportunities; what it

democratizes is absolute subjugation. Thus the western nation, in

whatever form adopted liberal democracy whereas in the third world

countries it is partisan democracy.

Democracy must be liberal, that means (i) protective in the sense that

it must protect the people from encroachment of governments and the

creation of the mechanism to protect the individuals from over

mighty government, (ii) democracy must be developmental, i.e. haveconcern of individual and community. It emphasizes the 7th century

philosophy that there should not be merely political equality, but alsoa relative high level of economic equality. It professed that no citizen

should be rich enough to buy another and none so poor as to be

forced to sell themselves. Thus developmental democracy gives way

to participatory democracy, (iii) democracy must ensure promotion of

openness that calls for accountability of politicians and bureaucracy,

decentralization within all the key institutions of society and clarity

in the political parties, interest groups and legislative bodies, (iv)

democracy has to promote highest harmonious development of

individual capacities, enhancing understanding, strengthensensibilities and achieve a higher level of personal development. The

simple device of voting cannot determine debate, criticism and

intellect the attributes of wisdom.

Democracy denotes party competition, multiplicity of ethical values,

cultural norms and that diversity is healthy and desirable, usually

because it safeguards individual liberty and promotes debate,

argument and understanding that ensure distribution of political and

economic power. It holds that power is widely and evenly distributed

in society rather than concentrated in the hands of an elit ruling class.Thus democracy is united politics in which individuals are largely

represented through their membership of organizations and all such

organizations have access to the policy process, and that organized

labour, business elits and consumer lobbyists are not able to exert

influence at the margins of policy process and that a measure ofdemocratic accountability is constant and consistent. Thus democracy

becomes the rule of many instead of the rule of the politicians. In


2/8

present day developed and under developed countries, it has become

norm that major groups and interest in society compete to shape

government policy through negotiations between government officials,

politicians and leaders of powerful economic interests including the

foreign interest groups rather than through the deliberations of a

representative assembly, which threatens to subvert the process of

electoral parliamentary democracy. Interest group leaders thus exert

considerable political power, even though they are in no way publiclyaccountable and their influence is not subject to public scrutiny.

The very popularity of democracy has threatened its use as a

meaningful political term. Debates about the nature of democracy have

tended to focus on three central ideas. First, who are the people and

how far the political power be distributed? Secondly, should the people

rule themselves through non partisan political process or should the

government be left in the hands to politicians and parties that claim to

represents them? Thirdly, what democratic process is appropriate to

ensure participatory politics?

Democracy has to take care of several functions including:

a) Stability and order: Democracy shall be exercised so that itensures the maintenance of stability and order. Spontenous action of

long chained free individuals provoked by vested interests may cause

emergence of anarchy. Hence a democratic government must keep

chaos and instability at bay, and create social order. Once solitary, poor,

nasty, brutish and short life must be replaced by peace and prosperity.

Any democratic regim must have ability to contain and reconcile

conflicting interests and ensure longevity and endurance of social order

and stability and establish consensus and consent. Regims

responsiveness to popular pressure and demands deemed to be justified

if they comply with democratic principles. Here is the role of a

vigourous civil society who are well acquainted with democratic norms

and are convinced of its success in bringing peace and prosperity ofhuman beings. A democratic government is supposed to have the

ability to impose his will on society and on groups that threaten to

generate irreconceivable conflict. Political authority is underpinned

by shared values and common culture. Stability and order are largely

the product of social and cultural cohesion and the capacity of the

society to generate respect and maintain support for established

institutions. But it must be taken into account that relying on

authority exerted from above may not place effective control and

constraints on exercise of political power. If stability is seen as an

end in itself, divorced from consideration of democratic legitimacy,social justice and respect for human rights, the result may simply be

tyranny and oppression.

b) Citizenship performance: The idea of politically alert and over

vigilant citizenship can be traced back to a 7th century Asian

philosophy. It states that though citizens take care of their household,

they must not neglect their obligations to state and shall possess a fair

idea of democratic politics and economy and remain ever vigilant so

that no antidemocratic political tyrant can take over state power or

even local power in pretex of this or that context. Citizens who do

not take any interest in public affairs may not be harmful but surelyare useless in a democratic political state as their indifference many

dare vested interests to try to usher in autocratic rule to serve their

purpose of dominance. Citizens must be active and sound judges ofstate policy. A citizen as a member of political community is

endowed with a set of rights and a set of obligations. Citizenship is

the public face of individual existence. Civil participation is linked to

the advance of constitutional government. Citizens must be aware of

their democratic rights necessary for social development, freedom of

conscience, of assembly, of free movements, of speech, right to

equality before law and right to own property without harming

others enjoyment of those rights. Citizenship involves such rights

which guarantee the individual minimum social status that provide

the basis for his exercise of both civil and political rights, that include

right to vote, right to stand in election of local or national

government bodies and hold public office and thus ensure availingopportunity and means to participate in political life. These enable a

citizen to live the life of a civilized being according to the standard


3/8

prevailing in the society. Liberal democracy perform well particularly

in this respect. Civil, political and social rights are the essence of the

constitutional, representative democratic form of government.

Citizenship ignores unequal class power and patriarchal oppression.

There arises a need to balance rights and obligations and thereby to

apportion responsibilities between the individual and the community.

Politics of right must conform to the politics of common good. But

care should be taken that in functional democracy, interestingindividuals with rights and entitlements do not breed atomism and

alienation, weakening the communal bonds that holds society togetherand flourish democracy. Society is a sensitive organism. If its unifying

element is removed or destroyed, it breaks into a thousand pieces. Men

still live together, but the cement which bound them together into one

with a common goal is no more. The charisma of democracy is not

enough. Only charisma is transitory and unstable. It has to be

institutionalized.

c) Material performance: The brilliance of any political system is

judged by its material performance dominated by economic issues. Thesuccess of a political system is linked to its capacity to deliver goods.

Widespread poverty and low level of economic growth in developing

nations deepens social tension, fuel corruption and undermine attemptsto sustain democratic constitutional representative government. So,

government must adopt reliable means of generating wealth and

achieve material prosperity for the people. In a democracy the

generation and distribution of wealth must take into consideration two

factors: (i) the people and (ii) the unstained means. The redistribution

must acknowledge welfare for all and not greatest benefit for the

greatest number. Performance indicated by material prosperity is

judged by fairness. The free market view in addition to unhindered

opportunity and state guaranteed means states that general prosperity is

best achieved by redistribution according to the necessity for

generating common welfare and more wealth. Economic growth is best

promoted by material incentives that encourage enterprise andendeavor and penalizes laziness. Thus democracy ensures a safety net

that protects individuals from absolute poverty in the sense that they

feel no want of basic means of subsistence. Greed and corruption

arise from inefficient and unproductive laziness. Democracy stands

for social justice through redistribution of wealth and ensure that all

citizen have a stake in nation building and that each of these has an

incentive to contribute. The so called democratic system that tolerate

wide social inequality run the risk of promoting social exclusion,

encourage increase in number of the underclass and opens the

breeding ground for crime and social unrest. Hence, democracy, toensure sustainable prosperity requires that material performance

operate within a broad framework of fair distribution and effectivewelfare for all irrespective of likings and dislikings, for and against.

d) Democratic performance: Stability, citizenship and material

prosperity are all outputs or products of democracy which is

concerned with the process itself i.e. how decisions are made, and

why and what decisions are made. The purpose of liberal democratic

politics is to liberate and empower the individuals and enlarge the

scope of personal autonomy. Democratic political participation is a

source of personal development and self-realization. Liberaldemocracy stands for institutional arrangement for arriving at

political decisions on which individuals acquire the power to decide

by means of a unstained competition for support from the people.Hence people must be made conscious, politically educated and

taught the virtues and benefit of democratic political participation

and they should be imbued with the spirit of building an absolute

exploitation free society of peace, prosperity and progress.

Present day politicians are self seeking persons who will support

their party or government only so long as it suits their private

interests and will follow whatever course offers biggest material

rewards. Also there are advocates and beneficiaries of sectoral

interests and the booty seeking intellectuals i.e. reactionary civil

society. Those are members of a collective conspiracy for exploiting

ignorant human beings. The vote maximizing behavior of political parties has serious adverse implications for the capability of

democratic government to its development objectives. If the


4/8

oppression consciousness can be imparted in hearts and brains of the

people the scope of vote politics becomes limited and the parties have

to behave more responsibly in the presence of a well-informed people.

Dispassionate debate and discussions in front of peoples gatherings is a

democratic process but it is practised by parties in a most passionate

and emotional way either to agitate the people or to make them passive

and imbecile onlookers. Very seldom, the parties speak of realistic

economic reform or good governance, other than ridiculing the party inpower or in opposition for their failure either real or concerted who

goes to verify the speeches! Pride and prejudices overtakes the realachievement or failures. In Bangladesh there is general erosion of faith

in democracy and state institutions. There lies the hope for liberal

democratic revival provided a people oriented human rightist civil

society or political party can be fromed form grass root level activists

and modest fund to nurse them to grow and develop. When a cruel

human catastrophe is nearing the door step either humanity would step

aside to give it a free passage or it has to unfurl the standard of its real

self and advance with all fury not to just resist but to its total

annihilation.

Human Rights as is now widely recognized is a pre-condition for

development. It not only embraces political decision making process but also administrative and implementation processes at local and

national level. It involves further the establishment and enforcement of

laws, regulations and a legal framework and institution for the effective

functioning of public and private enterprises and initiatives of people

as well as civil society. The first component of a development-oriented

system of governance is the commitment of the political leadership to

development. This commitment can be based on a vision or on a sense

of compulsion or urge that unless development is speeded up , the long

run legitimacy and sustainability of power and authority will be

jeopardized. Political commitment, if it is to succeed in promoting

development, requires (i) a broad national consensus on development

objectives and the nature of economic system, (ii) that there is enoughcompetence in administrative and implementation capacity in carrying

out the development policies and programs. There should be a national

consensus among various sections of the society and political parties

that the nature of the desired economic system is a market-friendly

and open, and liberal politics and economic system geared to

development. It is necessary that the political government actively

promotes sufficient debate, dialogue and discussion in various

forums, both political and otherwise, to explain and mobilize public

support for policies and programs it espouses. In addition to

commitment and consensus, competent government is a must fordevelopment. Government require a considerable amount of

expertise both at political level and administrative andimplementation level. While politician need not be technocrats,

scientist, engineers, or economists, they must have a understanding

of the broad policy issues, their rational and consequences for

economy. It is needed that a set of adequately trained political leaders

are there in the ministries who are able to communicate and to advise

the bureaucracy regarding various policy implementation options and

their implications, both in short and long term. However, to ensure a

minimum level neutral bureaucracy, not heavily aligned with or

dependent on favours of one or the other political parties remain acontinuing challenge. Uncertainty discourages productivity and

indecision hampers taking challenges. It is not exaggeration that

decentralization of decision making and implementation ofdevelopment activities to the local governments increase the

transparency and accountability of administration, promotes a wider

popular participation and brings the administrative machineries near

to the beneficiaries. This is not being done due to the fear of the

reactionary bureaucracy that their power will be greatly curtailed and

fear of the political parties in power and in opposition that power of

the local governments may go in the oppositions hands. This fear is

negated only in liberal democratic process that says that various

political interests and viewpoints can co-exist and live together by

negotiations, accommodation and compromise if politicians just give

up patronage in projects and financial allocation.

Political leaders have yet to show charisma and vision to put the

country on the path of stable political and economic progress. The


5/8

commitment to democratic principles, i.e. honoring the will of the

citizens is lacking. Here political activism, intolerance and mobilizing

mob power in the street are not democratic characteristic. Downsizing

the government is a must to curtail corruption that takes in Bangladesh,

having in contrast with the western countries, an antigrowth

characteristic mainly because it is predominately related to rent seeking

activities. Democracy should be considered from a three fold point of

view: a) as the attitude or sentiment of an individual human beingtowards himself, b) as the attitude of an individual human being over

other human beings, c) as the ensemble of the social and politicalconditions necessary for the formation and development of the same

sentiments in the individual human beings. Democracy cannot be

attained as a political fact as a regim constituting the power of the

many unless it has first become part and parcel of the individual who

is an essential constituent part of the many unless it is firmly imprinted

in his self or ego in the components of his personality, and it exists

in society as an ensemble in conventions, customs and traditions. The

democratic spirit is not necessarily inherent in any given set of moral

and social conditions. It is rather the completion of a culture, thesupreme triumph of humanism, that is to say, of a definite evaluation of

man appropriate to his individual level of evolution and that of others.

But in every process of democratization, the democratic spirit hascome to connote certain psychological limit or level, below which

prevails the slave mentality, and above is the mentality of the despot.

The status of the free man the citizen of a democracy constitutes a

positive assertion midway between those two negations. That is the

intrinsic reality, the criterion of any process of democratization. The

process of democratization must eliminate these two anti democratic

tendencies, one towards servility and the other towards despotism and

oppression. But these negatives of the democratic spirit do not

disappear spontaneously. The spirit of democracy has to be implanted

within the psychology of human beings, with the full assurance that it

can create the general social conditions favorable to the maintenance

and development of the individual and effectiveness of the democraticspirit. Democratization is not mere handing over of power between two

parties, such as the people and the government, but the formation of

sentiments, of emotions, of reflections which go to make up the

foundation of a democracy in the consciousness of the people. Where

the continuity of such sentiments, customs, conventions of

democratic spirit is ensured there can be no despotic regime ever. But

where these are absent i.e. the democratic spirit is not infused in the

individual, there the superficial character of those constitutional

methods which are being adopted from countries with age old

democratic traditions by newly independent countries building up anew order, will never succeed.

Democracy is thus first established in the consciousness with the new

evaluation of himself and others which reveals the sublime

importance of human dignity. The granting of political rights and

social guarantees is a natural consequence of this. Borrowing and

implementing a bit by bit picked up and then joined constitution

without reforming the psychological structure will miss the true path

to the process of democratization. The psychological infrastructure is

the subjective basic of democracy that places a man on the same

footing of another man. The characteristics of political democracygive individuals a certain responsibility in the constitution of

authority and every guarantee against the abuse of such authority. But

the historical experience of political democracy that is prevailing inthe world clearly manifests how precarious are the liberties of the

individual if at the same time he does not enjoy social guarantees

which ensure his material independence. We have seen how, in

politically evolved countries, it is actually possible for the free

citizen to become the obscure faceless slave of powerful vested

interest and combines, and how, in consequence, he losses all the

advantages which were granted to him, in theory, by democracy and

constitution, neither of which have played any visible and tangible

part in his life. All legislative measures which constitute the social

aspect of democracy have produced no visible results in human

society. The impelling need to protest to the despotic regime brought

severe torture with people all around and the so-called civil societyremaining silent. The nature and consequence of protests, if taken


6/8

into account, and acted upon after consideration with united

democratic spirit, raises humanity to a lofty level.

CONTEMPORY experience has shown that it is not enough to

have the forms and trappings of democracy in place in the way of free

and fair elections. Democracy must play an instrumental role in

promoting human rights which in itself also means to the end of raising

certain societal goals such as:(i) the eradication of human deprivation

(ii) the realization and sustainability of fundamental andhuman rights.

(iii) the security of life and human liberty

(iv) the democratization of participation in the process of

governance and the market.

Regrettably we note that formal democracy in Bangladesh, even in

countries where functional democracy has flourished for many years,

have not been able to sustain human rights. This has led to the

degeneration of democracy and its sustainability compromised.

It is evident that democracy cannot be taken for granted and that it has

to be nurtured and constantly renewed. The institutions of democracyneed to be made more inclusive to ensure the participation of the

deprived majority who vote but have little say in the process of

governance. It is, thus, arguable that Bangladesh crisis of democracy

lies in the shallowness of the roots of our political system. As a

consequence of the weak foundations of democracy in Bangladesh, we

are witness to a progressive degeneration in the quality of our

democratic institutions both as to the nature of the political discourse

as well as the operational outcomes of such honored institutions as

parliament.

It is this exclusionary political process which has contributed to the

elevation of apolitical politicians, driven by no public purpose but bytheir ability to use politics as an instrument of private gain. Such

politicians depend less on public esteem than on the resort to money

and muscle, manipulation and mastermind which remains the

currency of choice for capturing electoral office. Such a political

culture has compromised accountability and hence lack of good

governance in a most fundamental way, politically marginalizing the

concerns and participation of the deprived majority as also those

committed to enhance the integrity of public life. We are thus witness

(with a little substitution) to the Greshams law of politics where bad

politics drives out good politicians. In Bangladesh, the growing costof elections has made parliament into a rich mans preserve where the

deprived, including women, have little chance of representation andthus remain without voice once they have cast their vote. In such

process, force, farce and fraud have become integral to the political

process.

In such system, policymakers are, with some distinguished

exceptions, making themselves accountable not to their citizens but

to themselves, through mutually collusive interest with policymakers,

bureaucrats and the business sector. What little accountability exists

appears to be owed to the international financial institutions and theirpolicy agendas and to the need to propitiate the abstract forces of the

global capital market. Without prejudice to the importance of taking

congnisance of both these symbols of globalization and the makingof policy, the sustainability to democratic institutions needs to

originate in the concerns of those who vote for the policymakers.

In a truly representative democracy, policymakers need to make

themselves accountable to their voters. To build such a representative

and accountable policy, a significant segment of the deprived sections

of electorate, who constitute the voting majority in Bangladesh; need

to be elected to parliament. No process or policy reform or agenda

for poverty alleviation can be made credible as well as sustainable if

the deprived remain without direct voice in our electoral institutions.

Accountable democracy does not limit itself to the machinery of thestate. In an increasingly privatized market driven economy, those

who operate in the private sector need also to make themselves


7/8

accountable to their shareholders, to their depositors, to the

communities where they operate, to the workers in their enterprise and

to the environment which to be sustained. This concept of corporate

responsibility is now an important part of the contemporary discourse

on democracy. To establish a system of accountable democracy, to

cloak secrecy and obscurity which shelters misgovernance must be

lifted.

In the process of establishing accountability and demanding

transparency, civil society sector has to play an activist role, whichgoes beyond holding seminars and publishing research paper. Credible

and sustainable civic activism is a labor and skill intensive task with a

high attendant risk factor. Thus, present vocal reactionary civil society

organizations have to be grounded. It is the felt needs of affected and

concerned citizens for better governance. A civil society constructed by

aid donors and an externally funded livelihood activity can imperiously

sustain itself but can never exercise an impact on entrenched vested

interests unless they are held accountable and committed to the spread

of liberal democracy in Bangladesh.

By its nature democracy remains a deeply indigenous process. At the

end of the day the voting citizens of Bangladesh have sufficient hungerfor better run hospital, school, municipal services effective and

equitable and law enforcement, of elimination of corruption in

accessing such services, to demand transparency and accountability

from both public as well as private providers. The quality of

democracy in any society thus depends on the extent to which citizens

are willing to assert themselves in demanding better governance. If we

treat democracy as a spectator sport then it is the professional

politicians who will only play the game and people will witness the

end of citizenship, particularly, governance that they deserve. The

capacity of citizens, particularly the deprived majority to assert

themselves will in no small measure depend on whether they can put in

place institutions and polities, which give citizens a direct materialstakes in these institutions of democracy. Such a stake would

contribute to enhancing the opportunities to these citizens to both

influence policy and enhance their capacity to operate in the market

place and ensure sustainable democracy as participatory polity as

well as economy.

Malfunctioning democracies tend to misgovernance. It may generate

into the failed state, whose very cohesion as a national entity can be

put into question. Such a prospect is no longer an academic issue in

the crisis ridden world today. Those of us from Bangladesh, who arewitness to our prevailing crisis of governance, have already seen the

consequences of such failures of governance in our ownneighborhood. Rather than search for false solution associated with

half democracy political culture, which lies at the roots of our crisis

of governance, it is a human duty to seek, to build an accountable and

sustainable democracy in both the political and economics and

human rights sphere. Having dealt with the formal aspect of the

issue, let us come to the conflict, so to say the conceptual part of the

problem and why indeed we had failed with our Parliament.

The parliament is indeed a real-life place where there is no scope forpolitical demagogy. It is neither the place for getting claps nor for

pats on the back by hurling abuses at ones opponent, lest of all form

the highest echelons of the political institutions. It goes withoutsaying that these are the most obnoxious deterrents for avoiding the

boycott or walk out culture in our Parliament. But there are even

more substantive reasons contributing towards such unhealthy

behavior within the Parliament. First, start with examples of how

MPs generally behave inside the Parliament. The thumb rule in a

parliamentary democracy is the responsibility of governance that lies

with the majority party. Opposition is assigned to establish their

accountability in the Parliament and try to help and rectify them if

and when the majority party is making obvious mistakes. The simple

cure is that the treasury bench would take the signal form a genuine

criticism coming from the opposition in case of a real lapse on the

governance process and retain their popularity. Obviously the purpose of the present day parliament is to establish the

accountability of the government of the day and not of the


8/8

opposition. Paradoxically the reality of the parliament has just been the

reverse! Here, the treasury bench jumps up on their seats at every

simple criticism of the government, taking hold of the microphone for

hours in castigating the opposition, trying to establish the oppositions

accountability, who apparently had already been castigated for their

role in the past and that is why they are in the opposition now. How

strange! Besides in a parliamentary from of government, one rarely

observes a situation when a cabinet minister jumps out of his seat inorder to refute any comment whatsoever that may have been made in

the House on a topic that is not at all the direct concern of thatparticular Minister in ones wildest dream. The treasury benches job is

to play in cool, let the opposition get excited, while the Parliament has

seen the highly excited Ministers hurling awful abuses and utter

sometimes untruths at the opposition which they can ill afford in a

Parliamentary system. On the same account it is obvious that in a

parliamentary system bills would be passed by the government

although at the same time there is no reasons as to why the government

should not ever listen to the amendment to the bills inside the

parliament knowing full well that the opposition cannot ever get themthrough.

No wonder, the opposition also most of the times, waste their stipulatedin hurling accusations full of lies, on the government. Raising voices to

show how active they are in the service of the people, whom they

ignored till the last day of their reign. In their exuberance want to have

their way in the passages of bills, very well forgetting that they can

only criticize, and that also constructively until such time as to when

they can get back the mandate from the people to be majority party and

pass their own bills. Incidentally, the fact that they are at the mercy of

the government, in this particular respect so long they are in the

opposition, can claim results to the possibility that if they indeed have

done good points in the amendments which had been rejected by the

government, the opposition would modulate public opinion against the

government thereby reaping benefit for the next general elections. Thatis the way of democracy and so long they do not seem to appreciate

these axioms.

Finally, there is an old English adage, which forbids people living in

glass house from throwing stones at others. Pity we hadnt learnt

from this counsel over the centuries. The consequence has been

obvious. Men in power and in opposition threw away the spirit of

Parliament by sheer arrogance, it is now imperative that people opt

for liberal democratic politics that their forefathers have cultivated

for ages till the British in collaboration with the active help of theAryan Vedics occupied this land and subjugated the people, kicked

out the functional side of liberal democracy and forced formaldemocratic culture that robbed the people of all their right, except the

right to vote the unscrupulouspowerful and the rich to state power.

neither demos nor cracy

Documents