Assignment: The Role of Civil Society in contributing to Democracy in Bangladesh

Course No: DS-308

Submitted to: Kazi Maruful Islam Assistant Professor Depertment of Development Studies University of Dhaka

Submitted by: Mostafa Amir Sabbih Roll-20 2nd Batch Undergrad Student Depertment of Development Studies University of Dhaka
Date of submission: 03-11-2011

Abstract
Grassroots development in Bangladesh gained world recognition with the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Professor Yunus and his Grameen Bank. On the other side of the coin, Transparency International rated Bangladesh as the Worlds most corrupt country for five successive years from 2001-2005. Why then, can civil society be so successful at the grassroots level, yet not have any strong role in producing good governance and consolidating democracy? The present study particularly addresses this problem and attempts to uncover the causes to such contradictory outcome of civil society in Bangladesh. In this connection, the present study also qualifies the normative assumption on the positive relation between civil society and democracy asserted by the main stream Neo-Tocquevillean School that has profound influence on donor policies on good governance and programs for strengthening civil society. From a comparative discussion on contemporary India, The Philippines and Pakistan with that of Bangladesh, it is the political actors that have been found to be the determining factor to the strength of civil society and dimension of democracy. The study not only answers questions regarding the weak performance of civil society in relation to democratic consolidation but also indicates the impracticality of the donor policies for placing high targets for civil society in a political system that still lacks political institutionalization, democratic consensus and economic development. International and national policies on civil society should be formulated accepting the social and political reality. Though the civil society may not be able to completely overcome the influence of politicizations, lure of patronage, and vertical social relations it has the possibility to improve and gain a stronger position. In this way, whatever positive outcomes are produced may be considered as achievements.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction....4 2. Definitions......5 2.1 Democracy...5 2.2 Transition to democracy..5 2.3 Democratic consolidation....6 3. Literature Review.....7 4. Methodology..8 5. The Overall Performance...9
5.1 Position of Bangladesh civil society and democracy in comparison to other Asian countries..9 5.2 Confrontational democracy in Bangladesh.9 5.3 Ability of Civil Society in Consolidating Democracy.11 5.4 Neo-Tocquevillean Assumption and Donor Policies: Implication of the Bangladesh Case.....12

6. Conclusion..13 Bibliography14

1. Introduction
Performance of the civil society from the aspects of politics and democracy is rather insignificant. The civil society has been termed weak fragmented (Westergaard 1990) 1 , and partisan (Quadir 2003)2 in terms of ensuring pluralism, political participation and democracy. Organizations that are conventionally known as civil society in Bangladesh, like the labor unions, chambers of commerce, professional groups, bar associations, student groups and even small local clubs and recently development NGOs, have been accused of partisanship and being engaged in manufacturing and maintaining an elite dominating hegemony rather than advancing the genuine interests of the groups (Stiles 2002, Quadir 2003, White 1999, Jahan 2005). Some of these organizations are also scarred by corruption, clientelism and other misdeeds. The traditional civil society organizations may be superficially seen to be working in a democratic way following formal organizational structure and constitutions; practically they are found to be run by the wish of the leader or group leaders who are again blessed and controlled by the political parties. Horizontal democratic norms may not always be found in the leader member relationship of such organizations. Again the development NGOs that is the CSOs who claim to be the voice of the poor in Bangladesh often dont follow democratic practice in their relation with their poor beneficiaries. The relationship is more like a service provider or credit giver and receiver than horizontal members possessing the same power to exert and implement their opinions and wishes. The internal governance system of the NGOs are often accused to be corrupt, non-accountable and influenced by nepotism, patronage etc. Civil society seems to have reflecting the political and social situation of Bangladesh. Beginning from the top political executives, administration, political parties and down to the local government and informal social institutions in Bangladesh, it is clientelism, patronage, nepotism, corruption that appears as the operative practices. Formal democracy is yet to be institutionalized; rather it is facing interruptions and deadlocks from time to time due to non compromising attitude of the major political parties. While civil society is expected to fight against such negative forces within the society and politics, they are practically found to be entangled within the current trend of politics. The associational culture that exists in Bangladesh and the organizational strength that has shown success in poverty alleviation, have not yet reached the level so as to act as the watch-guard to state performance.

Westergaard, K. (1990). Decentralization of NGOs and Democratization in Bangladesh in Demcoratization in the Third World: Concrete Cases in Comparative and Theoretical Perspective by L. Rudebeck and O. Tornquist, eds., London: Macmillan. pp.173-188. 2 Quadir, Fahimul (2003). How Civil is Civil Society? Authoritarian State, Partisan Civil Society, and the Struggle for Democratic Development in Bangladesh. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Vol. XXIV No. 3, pp 425-438.
1

2. Definitions
2.1 Democracy Dahls (1971, 1991) Polyarchy is regarded as the ideal type democracy for the present study. It is the target for the transitional or fledgling democracies to achieve through institutionalizing their democratic institutions and practices. The donors concerned in democratic consolidation through the civil societies also recommend polyarchy as the goal for the developing world. The most important seven features of such democratic polyarchy are, 1. Control over government decisions on policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials; 2. Elected officials are chosen and peacefully removed in frequent, fair, and free elections in which coercion is absent or quite limited; 3. Virtually all adults have the right to vote; 4. Most adults also have the right to run for public offices in these elections; 5. Citizens possess a right, effectively enforced by judicial and administrative officials, to freedom of expression including criticism of and opposition to the leaders or party in office. 6. They have access and effectively enforced right to gain access to sources of information that are not monopolized by the government of the state, or by any other single group; 7. They possess an effectively enforced right to form and join political organizations, including political parties and interest groups (Dahl 1991, pp 73-74). These seven conditions imply three main dimensions of political democracy competition, participation and civil and political liberties (Srensen, 1993:13). In such a democracy institutional power holders are elected by the people and are responsible to the people (Vanhanen, 1997: 31). It ensures power sharing by all major groups where common people have some kind of control over decision making (Quadir, 2004: 88). Dahl (1971) emphasizes the responsiveness of government to the preferences of citizens considered as political equals. Democracy with such a high value may be achieved only through stages and transitions, particularly in a developing country. 2.2 Transition to Democracy There are rich literatures on democratic transition and consolidation (Przewoeski, 1991, Hansen 1996, Srensen 1993, Gunther 1995, Power and Gasiorowski, Linz and Stepan, 1996). Accepting the views of Hansen (1996) and Srensen (1993), the stages for democratic transition turns out to be the following four with democratic consolidation as the last stage: 1. Background conditionAuthoritarian regime where national unity is strong among the political communities; 2. Early transition Political opening where the authoritarian regime gives concessions and a consensus has been developed among the citizens and leaders for democratic change; 3. Late transitionat this stage the regime is more democratic than the previous ones but not fully democratic. Political actors and governance institutions are yet to fully conform to the democratic rule and democratic consolidation. These changes in phases do not occur in a negotiated and linear manner. Often democracies in developing countries are found fluctuating between authoritarianism and frail democracy (Sorensen 1993:41); 4. Democratic Consolidationit is the last and final phase of democracy. In the ideal or strict form, at this stage of democracy all the democratic institutions are formed and the new democracy has proved itself capable of transferring power to an opposition party (Srensen 1993:45).
5

Bangladesh in 2006 may be identified as being located at the stage of late democratic transition. Bangladesh had gone through British colonial rule (1757-1947) and then had been under the dictatorial rules of the Pakistani Military (1947-1971). During these periods there have been movements for autonomy, democracy and independence where civil society had played a significant role (Mamoon and Roy, 1998). Though Bangladesh emerged as an independent democratic country in 1971, it soon went under authoritarian rule. From 1974 to 1990 Bangladesh was directly or indirectly ruled by military (Tasnim, 2002: 62)3. During the last half of the 1980s, movements for democratic rule, lead by political parties and supported by civil society gained voice and at the end of 1990 the authoritarian regime was ousted by a mass movement. Quadir (2004:95) terms the process as a negotiated transition to democracy. Since 1990, Bangladesh began its first phase of democratic transition. The fledgling democracy is experiencing ups and downs marked by political instability, confrontation and economic inflation. However, in the meantime three peaceful free and fair elections had been held that always led to ascendancy of the alternate political coalition to power. Now democratic rule of games are understood by all political actors; however, the culture to adhere to democratic norm and accept the uncertainty of the democratic institutions are yet to be reflected in the performance of both the ruling power and opposition block, which often leads to political deadlocks. So the democracy is still marked by instability and confrontation. 2.3 Democratic Consolidation The challenge for democratic consolidation is to ensure the seven characteristics of poliarchy not only through legislation and constitutional amendments but through practices ensuring political stability, equality and representation of all segments of the society in state governance. The idea is very broad and the process requires involvement and coordination of a good number of actors and factors. Gunther (1995: 7) is of the opinion that democratic consolidation is achieved when a consensus is reached among the key political actors to adhere to the democratic rules and accept political institutions as the only legitimate framework for political contestation. This means an agreement towards democracy from above. Linz and Stepan (1996) discuss the five major arenas of a modern consolidated democracy that jointly contribute to a consolidated democracy civil society, political society, rule of law, state apparatus and economic society. All the five arenas have their specific influence and type of interaction towards and within the democratic system. Such democratic consolidation takes place in a combined way and is not dependent on only one factor. The Linz and Stipan (1996) model is based on the experiences of democracies in Europe and Latin America. For the case of Bangladesh, I show that democratic consolidation may be achieved through the combination of four major factors that is political institutionalization, stable economic growth, development of a democratic culture and a participatory civil society. None of these sections will work independently but together, where civil society interacts with all sections. The present study shall concentrate on civil society in its ability in consolidating democracy in Bangladesh. The four objectives or tasks for civil society in consolidating democracy in Bangladesh are the following: 1. Civic education on political and human rights; Tasnim, Farhat. (2002). Crises of Political Development: Bangladesh Perspective. Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Vol. No. XXV. pp. 53-70.
3

2. Generating interest and values of the civil society groups to the political society interest aggregation; 3. Monitor the state apparatus and economic society of these sections will work independently but together, where civil society interacts with all sections. 4. Ensure better participation and representation of all segments of society in political decision making besides the poll and ensure better partnership between government and civil society.

3. Literature Review
Putnam (1993) and Diamond (1989, 1992) are considered as the proponents of the mainstream Neo-Toquevillean school who argue that social capital and organized citizenry are the keys to make democracy work. Trust, cooperation, generalized reciprocity and networks generated through civic engagement and association are the core ingredients to economic and institutional success. These traits define civic community. Societies rich with such traits have shown affluences and democracy, while other societies that lack such attributes but marked by vertical networks, patron-client relation, force, kinship, patronage etc. have shown lower performance in development and good governance (Putnam, 1993). Diamond (1989) believed that developing countries require autonomous, local based citizenry for the development and maintenance of secure democracy. Harbeson (1994:1), another proponent of civil society in developing countries, went to the extent of identifying civil society as the missing key to political reform, legitimacy and governance in those political systems. These ideas have provided the theoretical basis to the development paradigm called good governance agenda where it is suggested that a virtuous circle could be built with the state, economy, and civil society which will balance growth, equity and stability (Lewis 2004, 303)4. Since the 1990s, International Development Organizations (IDO) has taken big projects to foster development through civil society initiatives in the South. Researches show donor initiative to support civil society has lead to grass-roots development, social mobilization, and empowerment (World Bank reports, Fisher: 1998; Stiles: 2002, IOB: 1998, Amin: 1997, Tasnim: 2005, Dowla and Barua: 2006). But donor projects have hardly succeeded in pushing forward the issues like participation, democracy, and good governance through civil society effectively. Putnams idea to bring about macro-political outcome (democracy) through micro social effect (civic engagement) (Foley and Edwards, 1996: 6) 5 has been criticized mainly from three aspects its simplicity, overlooking the political gap between civil society and democracy and ignoring the other forces simultaneously active in the political system that influence both civil society and democracy. Historically it has been proved that close network blocks, innovations Lewis, David. (2004). On Difficulty of Studying civil society: Reflection on NGOs, state and democracy in Bangladesh. Contributions to Indian Sociology. Vol. 38, No. 3. pp 299-322. 5 Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards. (1996). The Paradox of Civil Society. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 7 No. 3. pp 38-52.
4

reinforce traditionalism and create distrust about those outside the social network. Development practitioners have also been found to be ignoring the political institutions like political parties as well as the traditional CSOs and concentrating only in forming and supporting new social organization like development NGOs. Moreover, case studies have shown that often, political institutionalization turns out to be more important for democracy than civic engagement and political penetration may cause opposite effect through civic engagement (Berman, 1997) 6 . Arnomy (2004:3), based on his empirical and historical observation, argues that, sociohistorical context influences the nature, dispositions, orientations, and impact of civic engagement. Institutional and societal conditions establish the cost threshold and enabling conditions that determine the democratic potential of associations and movements. More the less, to avoid social cleavages, Putnams civic associations do not advance a cause, and rather pursues policy changes (Foley and Edward, 1996) that are more like choral clubs, bird watching groups, soccer clubs. Democratic roles that citizens are able to play from such non-political and often closed membership are under question. According to Max Weber, the quantitative spread of associational life does not always go hand in hand with its qualitative significance (Berman, 1997:407). In fact, this is what has actually happened. Since 1990s, civil society organizations began to be highlighted both as service providers and in their role in promoting good governance and democratization (Davis and McGregor, 2000:53) 7 . Such interest of the international development agencies in social capital, civil society and participation may be interpreted as another way of building on the micro social foundation of market solutions (Angeles, 2004:187)8. With the end of the cold war, it had become necessary for the Western donors to democratize the South as soon as possible to make away for the new thrust of trade liberalization. They believed that a democratic and accountable state could foster economic growth and development and allow the market to operate freely. To make a way for accelerated entry of goods and services, financial services, protectionist or authoritarian regimes had to be removed or forced to democratize.

4. Methodology
This study was entrenched mainly in secondary data sources. I have gone through several books, articles, paper works linked to civil society and democracy in Bangladesh. The factors that influence the nature, development and strength of civil societies and their role in strengthening or contributing to democracy in Bangladesh have been based on previous literatures, researches, reports and reviews.

Berman, Sheri. (1997). Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics. Vol 49. No. 3. 1997. pp. 401-429. 7 Davis. Peter R. and J. Allister Mcgregor. (2000). Civil Society, International Donors and Poverty in Bangladesh. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1. PP 53 8 Angeles, Leonara C.(2004). Grassroots Democracy and Community Empowerment: The Quest for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Asia. In Democracy and Civil Society in Asia. Vol. II edited by Fahimul Quadir and Jayant Lele, Hampshire: Palgrave, Macmillan. Pp. 187
6

5. The Overall Performance

5.1 Position of Bangladesh civil society and democracy in comparison to other Asian countries Table 1 gives a simplified idea of the nature of democracy and the strength of civil societies of four Asian courtiers having political actors as the prime influencing factor. In case of India, civil society has been used by the parties in both ways for democracy and communalism. Congress Party emerged powerful in the absence of strong civil society organizations pushing for important strategic policies while BJP came to political power by using the civil society for motivating the voters with their communal sentiments. Only a few environment movements have been able to show their independent strength and confronted the state and political power.
Table 1 Comparative table showing democracy and civil society level in four Countries
Countries India The Philippines Nature of Democracy Stable but partly illiberal Elite dominated Vigilant Nature of Civil Society Partially vigilant, partially politicized, partially uncivil Politically active with strong network but divided Less participatory, politicized and polarized Weak and fragile Prime Influencing Factors Political Party and uncivil forces Political elites-land owners, business class Political parties and political leaders Military rulers using state apparatus

Bangladesh

Confrontational

Pakistan

Failed

On the other hand, in The Philippines, a strong network may be observed among civil society groups which has reached the extent to form political blocks, joined by left politicians and has entered electoral politics. However, they have also been found to be factious and influenced by political oligarchs, thus yet to overcome the elite democracy. In case of Pakistan it is the military state that has controlled the development and nature of action of the civil society which never gained the strength to fight for democracy. Bangladesh also shows the strong influences of political parties upon the society where the citizens and civil society groups have become co-opted and divided and acting for the political end of these parties. Though apparently, the country has a parliamentary system of democracy with numerous civil society organizations active at both local and national level. Based on the discussion on the nature of civil society, democracy of the four countries we get an idea of the position of Bangladesh in comparison to other countries. It is in a much better condition than Pakistan in contrast to democracy and civil society but after India and Philippines. It is the political actors who have ultimately defined the position of each country. 5.2 Confrontational Democracy in Bangladesh After a successful mass movement against the autocratic military regime in 1990, parliamentary system of government had been reintroduced in Bangladesh. However, in 2006 that is after 15 years, democracy is yet to be consolidated in Bangladesh. Rather behind the faade of
9

democracy, exists, instability, weak political institutions, patrimonial politics, personalized political parties, patron-client relation and absence of political consensus (Kochanek, 2000: 530)9. Researchers and scholars have termed such democracy rather partial or quasi-liberal or illiberal democracy (Kochanek, 2000; Hossian, 2000; Zafarullah, 2003). They have pointed out the personalistic rule of the political leaders of two major parties and the existing confrontation among them, as well as the mentality of playing zero-sum game in politics. During the 1990s the major political blocks had become divided over conflicting definitions of Bangladeshi identity, national heroes and liberation war symbols (Kochanek, 2000:531). Such division did not remain confined within the political elites but have influenced all social groups willingly or unwillingly. This division had become compounded when dynastic political leaders of the two major parties engaged in bitter, personal struggle to restore their patrimonial right to control over the state and polarized the whole nation. Ultimately such polarization has been used for political expedience that affected the democratic growth of civil society. This was just the opposite of democratic culture that was expected to develop through the reintroduction of democracy in 1990. At the administration level, during this period, political factors often determined the choice of people for key position in the governmental hierarchy, while personnel were shuffled within the civil service and statuary bodies according to partisan agendas. Public Policy domain has always been bureaucratized or maneuvered by the ruling party dictates to serve vested political and economic interest. There is very little scope for the policy networks integrating state and advocacy coalition (Zafarullah, 2003) 10 . Intrusion of civil society into policy arena is looked on suspiciously. Civil society organizations were discriminated based on their links to ruling party or the opponents, and educational institutions, especially universities and colleges, had been used by the major political parties to further their political objective. The press and private electronic media were relatively free but each news paper had tilt to either side of the political coalitions and often the private television channels were owned by the political business magnets. Though democratic, practically no regime have provided the enough space and showed responsiveness to the participation of civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The law, society, donor initiative, social tradition has led to the proliferation of civil society organizations. However, confrontational politics played by the two major political parties through the instruments of clientelism, patronage, nepotism corruption, violence have co-opted, politicized, weakened and polarized the civil society groups and undermined their ability to participate in political process, contribute to governance and democracy. The winning party enjoys monopoly of power for the duration of their electoral term, political decision making power centers around the Prime Ministers office (the Prime Minister herself and her closest political advisors). The society and civil society are politicized according to political line. And such party-society relation is based on clientelistic incorporation. The features are common in rule of either of two major political parties and their coalitions who are constantly confronting each other.

Kochanek, Stanely. (2000). Governance, Patronage, Politics and Democratic Transition in Bangladesh. Asian Survey. Vol. 40 No. 3 pp.530. 10 Zafarullah, Habib. (2003). Globalization, State and Politics in Bangladesh. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. Vol. XXVI. No. 3. pp . 283-296.
9

10

5.3 Ability of Civil Society in Consolidating Democracy As discussed earlier, for Bangladesh to achieve democratic consolidation, it is necessary to ensure the combined effect of four major interacting factors, e.g., political institutionalization, stable economic growth, formation of a democratic culture and a participatory civil society. It has also been identified that a participatory civil society has four main tasks to realize democratic consolidation. These are civic education on political and human rights, interest aggregation, monitoring of state apparatus and economic society and ensuring better participation and representation of all segments of society in political decision making. With the data and analysis revealed through the present study, it is now possible to point out to a considerable extent the ability and potentials of civil society in consolidating democracy in Bangladesh. On civic education, the performance of the civil society is satisfactory so far. At the grass-roots level, it has been found that CSOs are involved in some types of civic education and advocacy trainings like developing group network, local representation and ventilation of grievances, providing education and service in exercising legal and political rights, and raising social and political awareness. However, such activities have been found to be performed at a far low rate than the CSOs involvement in service providing functions like education, economic empowerment etc. Though low in rate in comparison to other service providing functions, raising political awareness has become a part of the grass-roots projects of civil society organizations, particularly among NGOs as the donors have put emphasis on such activities. The high rate of voters turn out (over 70%) during the 1996, and 2001 elections is said to be partly due to such awareness programs. Naturally, this must be evaluated positively for the citizens of Bangladesh and its democracy. However, as discussed in chapter five, awareness programs give the NGOs the opportunity to influence a large section of the voters decision regarding to whom to vote. Naturally the contesting political parties have considered this as a means to ensure a large vote bank. This led to political deals among the political parties and NGO leaders, which ultimately brought partisan allegations against some NGOs and their coalition. This divided the largest umbrella organization of development NGOsADAB. In case of interest aggregation, civil society has been found to be inefficient due to its low level of network and lower rate of participatory actions. Though the civil society in Bangladesh has strong link with the political parties, it is not for channeling grievances and pursuing for collective interest of the civil society through the parties. Rather political link has been found to bring about division among the civil society organizations and their coalitions. In case of civic engagement at the local level, the Bangladesh case supports the observation made in the CIVICUS project (2007) where it has been found that often in the South, the local initiatives for social welfare and collective actions, voluntarism, charity etc. are not coupled with a strong organized civil society in terms of levels of organizations, networks, infrastructure, and resources. Excluding the foreign funded NGOs, most of the CSOs particularly at the local level lack the necessary resources, organizational skills and technical assistance that may help them form network, write petitions, or engage in other forms of lobbying or advocacy. Moreover, Bangladeshi citizens do not enjoy social liberty as much as developed countries or even neighboring India. Small local NGOs also try to avoid playing political roles in public though they have to maintain political links informally for their existence and execution of their programs. At the capital level, only a minority of like-minded think-tanks, citizens' groups and NGOs have emerged as the voice of the civil society attracting the media and debating with the state. These few CSOs belong to a certain block and ideology (liberal and market economy) group; they cannot represent the whole civil society that consists
11

of different views and ways of thinking. However, it is only these organizations that possess the necessary technical, intellectual and financial support to attract the media, press and the government. So the interest aggregations are not taking place in a bottom up manner but by a few elite organizations at the centre. Evaluating on the basis of participation and representation all segments of the society, the low participatory Bangladeshi civil society can hardly make any success. Among the CSOs, participation rate through lobby, advocacy and other means like sending representative to local council and advisory bodies, have been low. Such findings rather refer to a low potential for the civil society to ensure participation and representation of all segments of the society. Lastly the most important activity of the civil society is to monitor state actions. Low rate of participatory activities by the civil society at the periphery and meso levels has already been mentioned. Moreover, analysis has shown that there are rather vertical links between the political actors and the civil society and political parties have penetrated the civil society. When the civil society organizations are already co-opted and controlled by the political actors they can hardly act independently and stand against the excesses of the state. Nevertheless, the potential or ability of civil society in Bangladesh in consolidating democracy cannot make us very optimistic.

5.4 Neo-Tocquevillean Assumption and Donor Policies: Implication of the Bangladesh Case The present study not only pointed out the reasons behind the inability of civil society in Bangladesh to contribute to democratic consolidation but also made attempts to qualify the assumption on civil society and democracy by the main stream Neo-Tocquevillean school. The school presumes that the more associations there are in a country the greater the possibility that democratic institutions will improve. It is believed that efforts to produce democracy through civil society and civic engagement may bring about macro social outputs from micro social efforts, the democratic practices shaped in associational activities will have spillover effects in other context and the same associational structures will operate in similar ways in different socio-historical back ground. Such supposition has profoundly influenced the donor policies on developing countries. The Bangladesh case has shown that despite the existence of a good number of civic groups and local associations and clubs at the community levels, civil society hardly influenced or contributed in local government decision making, national policies, and democracy. A good number of CSOs are working not only at the local level but also at the meso and central levels; but these organizations can hardly be considered as autonomous or well networked. Rather, most though not all CSOs have been found to be politicized and controlled by political actors and local elites, acting in favor of the status-quo rather than the people they represent. Moreover, a very few of them have been found to be active in actions that are related to politics and democracy. That civil society is an essential but not enough condition for democratic consolidation- is a fact broadly accepted by the contemporary researchers on civil society. Alagappa (2004) in his project on Asian civil society has pointed out to the same fact. In the CIVICUS CSI project, positive relations have been identified between a strong civil society and a strong state. Diamond (1996, 1999) has also mentioned the necessity of internal democracy within the CSOs, and some ideal characteristics for a civil society to be able to contribute to democracy. At the same time he emphasized the necessity of political institutionalization and liberal economic growth. Such ideal
12

condition and characteristics of civil society may provide strong theoretical base for the study of civil society, but in reality turns out to be impractical. Empirical investigation in developing countries like Bangladesh reveals its inapplicability. For civil society to work well and emerge as a powerful sector to bring and maintain democracy, it requires proper democratic environment that most of the developing countries fail to provide. But Diamond (1992, 1996) is optimistic that civil society movement and actions may make through the undemocratic environment and contribute to better democratic atmosphere in multiple ways like fighting against corruption, nurturing democratic values, bringing an end to clientelism, bringing unity among social cleavages and so on. The Bangladesh case has proved such expectations from a civil society to be unrealistic and normative. CSOs have been found to be in no position to generate democratic values, reduce corruption or clientelism. Rather the civil society leaders have been found to become corrupt, NGOs have been found to be incorporated in the patron-client network and most of the CSOs to be under the control of the political parties. Under a situation of low level of economic development, vertical social relations, instable political system and weak state, civil society alone cannot struggle through. Rather on its way it becomes influenced by the negative forces existing in the environment.

6. Conclusion
Civil society and its potential to contribute to democracy is determined not by any single factor. However, in combination of different factors like history, culture, external influence, regulatory framework, it is the Political structures that influence the civil society most and simultaneously the nature of democracy. This fact is evident not only in Bangladesh but other developing democracies in Asia. Stable democracy may not necessarily facilitate strong civil society so as strong civil society may not always lead to consolidated democracy. Rather, it is the political parties and their all powerful penetrative control. This has receded the participatory strength and strong voice of the vibrant civil society to contribute to democracy. Historical developments have helped the political parties to emerge as such powerful and penetrative position as well answers the reason why they have been able to succeed in their endeavor to divide and control the social groups. Cultural traditions of vertical social relationship, explain the nature of political cooptation that has taken place. Foreign donation has been accused of providing the necessary resources for corruption and patronage. Political parties have control over different traditional, professional groups, labor unions, chambers of commerce and so on at the central and meso level. Link with the political parties has become the main source of power for the rural elites. The NGOs have also turned into the new patrons to the poor. Moreover, such NGOs with development projects nationwide have lost their unity influenced by partisan politics.

13

Bibliography

Angeles, Leonara C.(2004). Grassroots Democracy and Community Empowerment: The Berman, Sheri. (1997). Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics. Vol 49. No. 3. Davis. Peter R. and J. Allister Mcgregor. (2000). Civil Society, International Donors and Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards. (1996). The Paradox of Civil Society. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 7 No. 3. Kochanek, Stanely. (2000). Governance, Patronage, Politics and Democratic Transition in Bangladesh. Asian Survey. Vol. 40 No. 3. Lewis, David. (2004). On Difficulty of Studying civil society: Reflection on NGOs, state and democracy in Bangladesh. Contributions to Indian Sociology. Vol. 38, No. 3. Poverty in Bangladesh. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1. Quadir, Fahimul (2003). How Civil is Civil Society? Authoritarian State, Partisan Civil Society, and the Struggle for Democratic Development in Bangladesh. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Vol. XXIV No. 3. Quest for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Asia. In Democracy and Civil Society in Asia. Vol. II edited by Fahimul Quadir and Jayant Lele, Hampshire: Palgrave, Macmillan. Tasnim, Farhat. (2002). Crises of Political Development: Bangladesh Perspective. Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Vol. No. XXV. Tasnim, Farhat. (2007). Civil Society in Bangladesh: Vibrant but not Vigilant. In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science. Westergaard, K. (1990). Decentralization of NGOs and Democratization in Bangladesh in Demcoratization in the Third World: Concrete Cases in Comparative and Theoretical Perspective by L. Rudebeck and O. Tornquist, eds., London: Macmillan. Zafarullah, Habib. (2003). Globalization, State and Politics in Bangladesh. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. Vol. XXVI. No. 3.

14