which cannot be done to a person or people, nor can even
THE MINDSET be done for them, but must be done by them.
To be human is to engage in relationships with other and with the
world. It is to experience the world as an objective reality,
independent of oneself capable of being known. Animals
submerged in reality, can not relate to it, they are creatures of mere
contacts. Human relate to the world in a critical way. They
apprehend the objective data of their reality through reflection, not
by reflex as do animals. Human are not limited to natural sphere,
but can participate in the creative dimension as well, they can
intervene in reality in order to change it. Human engage in
distinctively human activities of integrating with their context and
have the critical capacity to make choices and to transform reality
according to the choice. When human are incapable of changing
reality he adjusts himself instead, though it is the characteristics of
the animal sphere and is symptomatic of his dehumanization.
Human think and act and use their creative power to overcome the
obstacles which are either naturo physical or instrumental. The
history of human being is a struggle to overcome the factors,
which make them accommodate or adjust. This struggle to attain
to their full humanity is constantly threatened by oppression. Only
by developing a permanently critical attitude can human overcome
a posture of adjustment. Yet what in fact happens so often is that
the ordinary people is crushed, diminished, converted into
spectator, maneuvered by myths created by the powerful social
form. In such a state, peoples creative power is impaired and
cannot apprehend problems situated outside their sphere of
biological necessity. Their interests centre almost totally around
survival. Thus they do not fulfill their vocation of becoming
human of moving forward into humanity, into a less incomplete
state of being. Development is thus development of people as
human beings, it is about human growth, and this is something
Humanity is an integrated system of beliefs, of values, of
customs and of institutions which express those belief,
values and customs which binds a society together and
gives it a sense of identity, dignity, security and continuity.
Identity is the expression of the being of a person or a
group. Humanity is what human beings add to the world as
it is by changing it through their free action. It refers to the
accepted ways of living, how society is governed and how
relations between people are carried on. The world view of
any group or individual is the way in which the world, as
experienced by them is understood. It deals with major
concerns of existence, stages of life, promotion and use of
wealth, the physical and natural world and the powers
which affect the lives the people. The rites of passage
(birth, initiation, marriage and death) and the rules that
govern relationships between individuals and groups are all
expressive of the world view of the people. As identity is an
expression of the being of a person or a group, one must
understand his culture and world view. Identity sums up the
main characteristic which one would expect to find in
members of that group. But the consciousness of a
population is rarely consistent and of one piece.
Being poor is not just a question of income, diet, shelter,
health and security but it also includes consideration of
opportunity for personal fulfillment. It is common to think
of development as being synonymous with economic
growth or the growth of new social institutions. But these
economic inputs into society are in fact aspects of the
concept of development that centers upon the
transformation of the identity of the people. Economic
inputs into the community may become a catalyst for development
or become part of the fulfillment of the aspiration identified by the
people themselves. Thus development implies human
development- a process by which the identity of people is
transformed by themselves towards ideals and goals which they
seek for themselves. It is a holistic concept and not limited to
socio-economic advancement. External resources can be delivered
to the people, human development can not.
The vocation of people to become human beings is constantly
negated and thwarted by injustice, exploitation, oppression and
violence by the oppressors. It is affirmed by the yearning of the
oppressed for freedom and justice and by their struggle to recover
their humanity. Violence and oppression, in common parlance
conjure up extreme situations such as physical abuse and cruel
exploitation. Any situation in which one person hinders another's
pursuit of self affirmation as responsible person is oppression and
it constitute violence. Violence and oppression are structural
elements is society, or dehumanizing attitude towards other
people. Indeed, violence dehumanizes people, as violence and
oppressive acts negate the true vocation of people towards being
human. The great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed
is to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. Every
relationship of domination, of exploitation, of oppression, is by
definition violent, whether or not the violence is expressed by
drastic means. In such a relationship, dominator and dominated
alike are reduced to animals. The former dehumanized by an
excess of power and the latter by lack of power. When the
oppressed legitimately rise up against their oppressor, it is they
who are usually labeled violent, barbaric, inhuman terrorists.
Among the innumerable rights claimed by the dominating
consciousness is the right to define violence and to locate it.
Oppressors never see themselves as violent.
Violence characterizes all the relationships imposed by
oppression upon the oppressed, even when the relationship
is supposedly one designed to help the oppressed. Wherever
a program brings to the people something which reflects the
bringers vision of the world, imposing it on those who
passively receives it, that is a moral invasion. The bringers
have wrought violence upon the people because they have
neither invited nor allowed the people to participate in the
decision making on the basis of true understanding of
reality whether or not they want it. Thus the people are
tormented as animals or things by the very people who
claim to be working for the development of the oppressed.
A truly liberating way of working for human growth among
the oppressed is one which places the entire process in the
hands of the people themselves. No pedagogy which is
truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by
treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their
emancipation "modules" from among the oppressors.
Liberation from oppression can not be given to the
oppressed, it can only be claimed and achieved by their
own action and thus can not take place until they are
conscious of the reality in which they live. However, the
habits of thoughts and practices of accepting fate, which
have evolved over thousands of years, cannot be easily or
quickly transformed in an environment where poverty,
powerlessness, natural calamity and personal life crises are
so common. It is experience which transform belief and
behaviors. Beliefs supported and encouraged by knowledge
and until knowledge and power are experienced by people,
the people in the world view are unlikely to become
humans. Profoundly religious though, being a Muslim is
being a human. In Islam there is no scope to
compartmentalize world view. This is why the oppressors,
both internal and external are highly concern with what Islam says
and so the oppressors leave no stone unturned even to use force to
wipe out any real work towards Islamic resurgence that determine
behavior of humans in society. Occupation and articulation of
alternative explanation of oppression and injustice are ordained to
be overthrown and replaced by human well being and justice. The
paralyzing belief in fate is a mechanism evolved over the
millennium by the oppressors making the oppressed cope with
deprivation, a response to the continuing realities of poverty and
powerlessness. According to patron-client relationship a man is
entitled to subsistence from the rich he is dependent upon. In daily
intercourse a person with higher rank is accorded the right to
extract labor, service and respect of lower rank. He in turn
assumes obligation of patronage. This culture derived from the
Vedic Hindu caste system implies indulgent occupation of wealth,
abstract goodness and personal aura that stands totally against
humane teachings. This system has ancient Vedic Hindu cultural
roots that presuppose the acceptance of rank as the basis for
ordering society- a social value prescribed by the invader Aryans
upon the Dravidians with an ill motivated design to enslave them.
In a class society the system of authority and domination corrupts
the minds of the people. Those who have authority exert power
over those who are below in the class or caste hierarchy and this
makes the former feel important. The person dominated feels
humiliated and powerless and to compensate for this he exerts
power and authority over those lower to him. As patronage is the
main hope of preferment access to credit or protection, it inhibits
the development of oppression consciousness and class solidarity,
the dialogue between the rich and the powerful and the poor and
weak is impeded. Nature, as manifested urges people to throw
away the myth of power and orders the fostering of solidarity and
brotherhood among the people and provocates them to have faith
on their united power to achieve what belong to them as human
beings. The different elements of physical poverty-patron-
client and gender relationship have to be defined afresh.
Present structure of the society consist built-in domination
of the rich and undervaluing the women. Beneath the quiet
rural beauty of Bangladesh lies a web of conflict and pain
contributed to general scarcity of resources, resources
unutilized due to lack of education and knowledge and
unequal distribution of wealth. Hence the identity of the
people is that they are people but identity of human being is
not expressed collectively or corporately in any social
group. If the people are to achieve an improvement in their
physical condition of life they will have to undergo a
process of changing their false identity of people to he real
identity of human beings and thus change the social
structure. Such personal and social upheaval will require
creativity. There are so called reactionary intellectuals,
when asked about the oppressive social structure, says that
yet people survive. These negators and enemies of
humanity made 'survival' objective of life and prescribed
channeling human creativity and energy to people's
survival-and thus killing the human spirit that might rise for
humanization some day.
The experience of sufferings is the outcome of fear, fear of
starvation fear of the violent and the powerful and it affects
the self human image of the people and their belief in what
they can achieve. The aspiration of the people consist both
of material things- food, shelter, security and a host of non-
material things- social status, economic justice, equality of
opportunity, to participate in civil political and cultural
affairs. The sufferings entailed by the non fulfillment of
their aspirations are very great and people should be
conscientised as to how these suffering comes about. The
process under which the people-identity can be transformed
to human identity is inextricably tied up both with the world view
and with the Bengali and Islamic culture as humans. As for
humans the world view is not just a material world and many
aspects of behavior and the way in which they experience that
world are influenced spiritually. People know what it means to be
rejected, powerless, cheated, tortured and they experience it both
physically and spiritually. Therefore, to transform to human
identity and to be able to transform and fulfill their aspiration in a
process of true human growth both material and spiritual elements
have to be involved. Materials i.e. external resources will have to
become available to the people, and the existing internal resources
will have to be redistributed in a way that is consistent with full
humanity, which is equal to that of the rich. This cannot be done
by outsiders on behalf of the people, but must be achieved primary
by their own efforts. Liberation occurs when the reality of
oppression is transformed for both the oppressors and the
oppressed into a process of becoming human. This transformation
to real is a process of action and reflection, i.e. dialogue. This
dialogue process contrasts with 'assistencialism of non government
social organizations which is that form of social assistance that
attracts the symptoms but not the causes of social ills, and
therefore vitiates popular participation in the historical process of
change. Dialogue is the only way, not only in the vital questions of
the political order, but in all expression of human beings. Only by
virtue of faith, does a dialogue have power and meaning, by faith
in human beings and their possibilities. In the process of dialogue
human beings are engaged in allowing relationship, based upon
humanity, trust, hope and a critical awareness of reality. Anti
dialogue is the basis of loveless, arrogant, helpless, mistrustful and
critical people relations. Dialogue is the basis for relation between
two or more subjects, anti-dialogue in the basis of relation
between the subjects and objects. One very important element in
dialogue is trust, which leads to cooperation and solidarity. In true
dialogue all are subjects and no one is dominated, where it
is possible for the people to trust each other and their
initiators who are seen as leaders of social revolution. Thus
they are able to move from consciousness of themselves as
people and oppressed to a consciousness of themselves as
human beings forced to oppressive system and this open up
the way to unity and cooperation.
In the initial stage of the struggle for liberation people have
to learn and acquire knowledge about their human potential.
Self depreciation is the characteristics of the oppressed,
which they derive from their internalization of the opinion
of the oppressor’s hold of them. So often they are told by
the oppressors that they are good for nothing, know
nothings and are incapable of learning anything, that they
are sick, lazy and unproductive that in the end they become
convinced of their own unfitness. Almost never do they
realized that they, too know and have learned in their
relations with the natural world and with other human
beings and that they should not lost confidence in
themselves. Having internalized the oppressive behavior
taught by the oppressors they are dehumanized and need to
liberate themselves. When liberation is achieved by
acquiring knowledge he becomes a human, neither an
oppressed nor an oppressor, instead a human in the process
of achieving freedom, i.e. liberty, equality and fraternity.
This process of freedom cannot start while the people's
understanding of the social structure and the world view is
clouded. Reality cannot be transformed and people cannot
participate in that transformation in any authentic way
unless they develop an authentically critical position. This a
person can only do by his own intervention in and
integration with his own context. The more accurately
people grasp true causality the more critical his understanding will
be. In order to surmount the situations of oppression, the
oppressed must first critically recognize its causes. People has to
be taught the distinction between the world of nature and the
world of culture, the active role of human beings in and with
reality, culture as defined in nature and what purification they
should bring about as crown of creation to a world they did not
make; develop human culture by human labor, and make ceaseless
efforts to create and recreate. Knowing is the job of human beings.
In the learning process he not only really learns, but also
appropriates what is learned, apprehends and thereby reinvests the
learning and is able to apply the appropriated learning to concrete
existential situations. Knowledge requires transforming thought
into action and action into reality. Because a liberating education
consists of acts of cognition and not transferals of information, the
education adopts a different approach- the dialogue. He presents to
the people problematic social political cultural and economic
realities, in which people find themselves, for their consideration.
Through reflection and action, action and reflection people come
to know of humanity and how far they are from it. Dialogue works
against hopelessness and fatalism because it challenges the
distorted view of reality on which they feed. As critical perception
is embodied in action, a climate of hope and confidence develops
which leads people to attempt to overcome the limiting situation in
which they find themselves.
At this point some members of the lower oppressor class
finding time is running out develops a strong sense of social
responsibility and of engagement in the task of transforming
society and start organising the people for struggle of the
oppressed to be more human. Society comes to be seen as a
challenge rather than as a hopeless limitation. It is a profound
rebirth. These members though act as initiators play a fundamental
role, yet it is not proper for them to think of themselves as agents
of change. For the task is a two fold one-educational and
liberating, those who join them and those whom they are
trying to educate and liberate are subjects and not the
objects of his action. It is not invasion, manipulating or
conquering. It need faith, faith on the vision and on the
people that they will hold fast and will not disintegrate. The
vision is a revolutionary framework urging the process of
transforming society and creating a world in which it is
easier to love, to care to establish justice and is seen as both
necessitating and working a total change.
Leaders from the class of oppressors who have the
characteristics of creating temptation to manipulate the
people, keeps alienated from the people instead of acting in
communion with the people, tend to prescribe to them and
to dehumanize them with slogans and obscene cultural
activities, to seek to create sycophants and conquer them by
dividing into classes and ruling and promoting a section
with a view that it were the parts 'that promote the whole
and not the whole which, in being promoted, promotes all
the parts' - is but a leader who ultimately becomes
oppressor himself. The manipulation by the leadership is
sometimes carried out directly by him or indirectly by a
group of elites. The populist leader who rises from this
process is an ambiguous being, an amphibian who lives in
two elements, shuttling back and forth between the people
and the oppressive dominant rulers, he bears the marks of
both.
With enormous problems faced by the people, the day when
they can create a truly new society in which human rights,
peace and justice reign is a very long way off, and those
who lead the work of conscientisation must be content with
seeing an identity or regaining the old liberal identity of
Islam and liberalism and Bangali slowly develop among the
people, that is human identity. This requires two things: (i) a very
high degree of personal dedication and a deep change in their own
attitudes and (ii) a new vision of human development based upon
faith in God, the creator and judge who emphasises on human
equality of basic necessities and supremacy of leadership in merit
only. An oppressive leadership hold a distorted view of good and
propagates a completely deterministric view of good which
implies of events as 'all being the will of God,' but does not go on
to elaborate what a true view of God is, yet in the process of
humanising the dehumanised people it is required to have faith on
humanity rather than faith in God, who himself do not do
anything, but do so through people turned human beings. The
dominating oppressors, who have a tendency to sell God are not to
be feared or allowed to inhibit the fulfillment of the aspirations of
the people to be human. Distinction must be made between the
world beyond sight and the natural world that manifests God’s
will. The oppressors strictly materialistic concept of existence are
dominated by desire to possess and dominate property, means and
output of production process and people, reduces all including
humans to the state of objects at their disposal. It is the vocation of
human beings turned people to become human, yet if the idea to
become human is limited to an essentially materialistic concept of
humanity, it lacks spiritual dimension causing confusion and
unreliability that they may too turn into oppressors being
materialistic monsters. A very materialistic attitude to life, in that
the individual pursuit of resources, very often overrides the
dictates of what is known to be right or good behaviour and not
harming to others i.e. individualism. Violence dehumanises human
being into people and so the eradication of violence and the
emergence of the oppressed into their true vocation to become
human beings, who know things and can control the nature, is
what humanity is all about. The idea of humanity must have in it
the idea of forming union with human beings and the
animals and the rest of creation, that we call environment.
The determinants that turn human beings into people are (i)
a view of life in which all the ills are the fault of the
oppressor alone, and that only by eradicating the oppressor
oppression can be cured and (ii) oppressed are more
conscious of themselves as individuals rather a class and
contributing to the root cause of their problem.
The people lack solidarity as a class. They degrade
and exploit each other by treating their women folk as
things, by quarreling over scarce resources, by joining
factions, by discriminating against each other on the basis
of birth and caste thinking, and by simply non co-ordination
with each other almost all of which, in Islam, against the
dictates of humanity, because these prevent the people form
growing in brotherhood and solidarity, which is the main
need if the structural violence in the society is to be
challenged to pave way for liberalism. Identifying the
oppressors as the only cause of all social problem, tends to
reinforce a feeling of lack of personal responsibility which
is a major constituent in the belief in fate and the apathy
which can engender dependency attitude and can work
against will to work for winning back the norm i.e. the
liberalism. Strong emphasis should be given to make people
think themselves as subjects and start dialogue. There can
be no doubt at all about the truly liberating power of
dialogue through which people discover that they can
change the world, can participate in their own improvement
by taking action, can achieve a measure of justice by acting
together, can improve their self esteem, self image and self
confidence immeasurably. They can move form a
completely hopeless outlook towards one of hope,
tomorrow begins to hold out prospects of which many of
them could not even dream or imagine. People cease to be
submerged into subjugation by the present and they start to
participate in building the solidarity for liberalism and start to
form strategy.
The leaders’ followers has to be filled by absolutely
dedicated, skillful people, prepared to reject all the oppressive
tendencies in their education and culture be themselves a true
being with the people, rather than being "for them" or a being
"over them", that they subscribe to the vision and show it in the
way they do their work, so for most of their attitude has be learned
and assiduously developed on the job. It is made all the more
difficult by the constant need to be affirming, encouraging and
questioning people whose behaviour and self image tempt the
educated and the skillful to believe in their own superiority. The
vision therefore, to develop, calls for a quality of person as human
being who really exists, in fact, in this respect it fails to take
adequate account of human nature as it really is. These are great
vocation of the people as human beings to liberate themselves and
the oppressors. Liberation can not be bestowed as a gift, it has to
be an act of cognition, a positive achievement of the persons
liberated. The vision looks forward in the achievement of a
complete liberal resurgence in society where, justice, human
rights, individualism, reason replace oppression and violence;
where it is easier to love and all people participate in the creation
of human culture. Looking towards the inspiring vision of
liberalism, liberating the oppressor from the dehumanising effects
upon themselves of oppressing the oppressed is seen as an act of
being declassed. Yet there is no worked out theory or hold fast
strategy of just violence, organised non violence, passive
resistance or self defense. This is a major omission left out to
situation.
One of the most common reaction to the situation of
the people is despair. The more a person thinks about the
depth to which the violence is entrenched in society, and
the more he experiences the weakness and division of
people in the face of such violence, the more he inclines to
despair. It is sheer a shameful failure of faith in his power.
This present oppressive world view of the people
needs to be presented to them as a problem, as inhibitions to
the meeting of their aspirations and to their becoming closer
to their destiny as human beings. A theistic understanding
of humanity affirm the concept of human responsibility.
Problem of lack of trust and mutual solidarity gives rise to
mutual exploitation and cheating among the people
themselves. This is attributed to corruption in all levels of
society-which is so endemic and so deep that its presence is
felt by the people in almost all activities. Favour is
dispensed to the clients by executive against the
prescription of impartiality, justice for the people or the
activities of the law enforcing agencies is not available as
there is corrupt practices, business is completely riddled
with corruption, marriage is happy where the bridegroom
has additional income, loan taken from financial institutions
are granted with mutual agreement between the borrower
and the lending institutions and much more. There is a
strong desire on the part of the people to follow some one,
and they will follow a person, not a vision. So leadership is
connected with a concept of personal aura, built in charisma
and therefore a strong and deeply felt cultural norm that a
leader is a part of a wider set of relationships carrying its
own rights and obligations. In the dialogue agenda to
abandon the idea of accommodating local leaders as a
means of promoting the people would be to abandon one of
the most powerful forces for unity in society. A local
leadership can be encouraged which sees itself as leading not by
patronage but by communion with the people, an attack will be
made on patronage as a system, while at the same time prescribing
and utilizing the social norm which the people want to follow. The
attack on patronage must have three processes (i) the emergence of
the new local leadership motivated by the desire to serve the
people (ii) the self denial and self subordination of the leader and
(iii) the presentation of class thinking to the people as a problem
which inhibits the fulfillment of their aspirations. The non-
government organisation are not the ones whose programs aim at a
transformation of the structures in the society, which bind the
people and keep them down, it does not address the structural
causes of poverty.
The road to a new society based on liberalism, in which all
people are able to participate irrespective of religion, caste, creed
and sex and grow as human beings is very long and hard. The
prospect for any large-scale success in the near future is not that
much bright. But it is the most fertile ground where seeds
germinates very swift and easily. Concentrating on the vision of
liberalism and work with the people to transform their identity,
casting aside centuries of dependence, fear and self doubt and
discover that people themselves can grow closer to each other and
bring in a better way to live, and it is possible for them if only they
take the road together, something infinitely beautiful must happen.
It would be worthy of external funding to let the steps of the
liberals here in Bangladesh move faster, learn on the way,
continue to critically examine the success and amend in the light
of study, knowledge and experience and interaction between
liberals, in Bangladesh and liberals world over.
When a social trend develops into a conscious state in
certain individual it assumes a thousand fold intensity. The nation
evolving in a gradual manner, suddenly undergoes an
instantaneous and intensive transformation. It drives
forward with a historical jump and puts an end to what
Nietzche called 'social rumination.' They are movements for
resurgence of political, social, economic and cultural
nature. The leader of social consciousness and moral
conscience move by visionary inspiration that enhance his
social effectiveness and that constitute the creative
imagination of the nation. Their inspiration, derived from
collective consciousness, appear only at the inspired
moments of ingenious nations. He makes his own soul a
reflecting surface to the ingenious power concealed in a
nation. Social condition thoroughly examined by an
analytical and critical mind is expressed in a leader. Genius
is the spontaneous realization of the changes taking place in
society unconsciously. Leader is not to impose and
institute, but to discover the elements of national
conscience in the unconscious level and to bring them up to
the conscious level. A leader should have clear
understanding of the laws governing the order and progress
of societies and try to ameliorate the pathological factors
that have arrested the growth of the nation. The complex of
rules of religion, politics, morality, law, economics and
even aesthetics exist on an unconscious level in the life of a
nation. Life is a creative evolution, a moving vision that
takes shape on the way and amends itself to accommodate
diversity and changes for development perpetually, keeping
the superstructure, intact. Tradition means creativity and
progress. Because, it has a past which knits the discrete
moments to one another and a movement which pushes
forward as a motivating force. Thus traditions always create
new developments and new orientations, i.e. something
growing and creating by itself giving life to borrowed
innovations grafted on itself. Tradition constitute the spirit
of ambition, the social norms that rule its body. The traditionalist
nation lives in the freedom of history, the formalist in the bondage
of geography. Tradition not only establishes continuity and
harmony between the forces that an institution assumes at various
times, but it also shows how all of them are derived from the same
origin, thus serving to cement them together. Institution like
politics, law, economics, culture, logic, aesthetics are all derived
from religion. They gain a living force and a dynamic life only by
deriving their roots from a religious origin. The history of
civilization shows that, the philosopher is not a man who merely
puts together and organise the discrete truth which others have
discovered. The real philosopher is one who know the methods of
seeking the truth and actually applies them. They were fought not
for their idealism but for their realism. Their success rests not one
what they taught but on how they faced and fought the evil.
Properties originate from physical nature and values are natural
products of social reality. The effectiveness of man over society
depends on value derived from social beliefs and laws of nature
and place of human being in natural domain.
The leaders in a developing country always try to seek
political support from the people through intensive political
campaigns by making a lot of realistic and unrealistic promises
that arouse peoples emotion rather than judgement. They build up
powerful militant organisation like youth front, student front,
women front and labour front who do not hesitate to use force to
hush up any opposition that dare to term their policies anti people
or try to organise pockets of realistic politics. In Bangladesh
charisma is achieve by continuous political propaganda by
demagogue politician and their workers in different levels who
tirelessly profess the greatness of the leader. Even then, the leader
may not be always successful in mastering the peoples minds. So,
he needs a strong power base and builds up that by money,
muscle, manipulation and mastermind to ensure that his power is
not actively challenged by opposing forces sooner or later.
Remaining popular for a long time, depends on the
political consciousness of the people and their willingness
to take active part in politics and their intellectual ability to
counter the leader demagogue and the large group of
sycophant powerful forces. People all over the earth have
shown considerable urge to be free from political
suppression, economic exploitation, social seclusion and
cultural aggression. But to be free they need to participate
actively in the political decision making process. 99%
percent of people are too poor to afford that, they have
immediate business to take care of such as working for
food, clothing and shelter, medical attendance in ill health,
and direct oppression from government officials, village
headman, non-government organisations’ money lending
business with high interest rate, education of their children
etc. Citizens might is unknown to them, democracy means
only voting right in elections. Poverty and illiteracy
contribute much to the unabated exploitation that they
suffer in every day life.
This forcible unconsciousness of the people pushes
the leader to loose political active support from the people
and the power base that he has build up gradually and that
weakens because of corruption, rent seeking and
overzealous organisation. When a new political group
surfaces, the continuation of their role is threatened and the
much needed people's support is nowhere in sight. People
can not be aroused without coercion. no spontaneous
strikes, demonstration can be organised. The new group of
political interests with support form urban and middle class
gradually gains strength. This vicious cycle makes it
impossible to build up a reliable and strong lasting power
base in the people. This is elitist politics that takes with it
politicians, bureaucrats, unscrupulous business men and
industrialists and a tiny group of self seeking reactionary
intellectuals, none of whom can command & master support. The
opposition political parties are also constituted thus. So, it is a
quarrel of two or more vested interests to gain the authority and
power to exploit and subjugate the people and rule over them to
get rich to richer and turn to demi gods.
Thus a class of people should emerge from the middle
class, well educated and politically trained to overrule traditional
tendencies, economically sound and possess genuine interest in
individual liberty, equality in political participation, equality of
opportunity with the assurance that they will be supported by the
state to be provided with means to avail that opportunity, gender
indiscrimination in every sphere of life, tolerance of diverse
opinion, acknowledge unity in cultural diversity, guarantee of
education as right regardless of opportunity and means, and
provision of economic opportunity and means only can ensure
personal freedom and democracy and vice versa.
A people oriented party serves the cause of development,
motivate the masses, develop leadership and politically organise
and mobilise illiterate and ignorant masses. It can be a tool for
developing democratic institutions, of leadership and of
motivating popular participation at the grassroot levels. A party
should be an oranisation crystallising the political views of large
portions of the population and also as instrument, dedicated emit
to organize and activate the masses towards liberal democracy.
It is a natural tendency of all rulers or ruling elits to
perpetuate their reign. Strong internal objection to hand over
political power is there, because to rule also means to retain
power, status and ever increasing wealth. Besides, there lie in the
core of the heart of the rulers fear that the new regime may be
inclined to victimize them to avenge the repressive measures that
the former have adopted against the latter. While in power
the ruler made himself the sole authority to determine what
the national interest is and anybody suggesting otherwise is
termed as agents of foreign hatched conspiracy. The
oppositions also behave in such an irresponsible way and
adopts foul playing that the rulers find no other alternative
but to strengthening their belief that rigid and ruthless
suppression of the opposition will ensure their survival.
In most developing countries stability and
legitimacy is too fragile. Everything depends on the
farsightedness and the ability of the leader in balancing the
difficult real actors who are contending for power. Only
then, inherent instability, one of the characteristics of
developing countries can be tackled. Bangladesh has
witnessed in pre 20th century, liberal rule where the ruler
changed but not the system' but after that it had a
succession of new leaders bringing his own principles and
ideas as well as his personal style of government. Even the
most people oriented leader can hardly avoid taking care of
the paramount interests of the ruling elits or the groups on
whose support his own survival depends, the bureaucracy
and the unscrupulous businessmen, the reactionary civil
society and cultural forces. Any reform measure that
contravene the interest of the upper class are withheld or
delayed and the general masses are totally ignored. Any
ruler, seriously attempting to redress the plight of the
people may be compelled to face rebellion form among the
bureaucracy and the intermediary power bases and even the
foreign funded self seeker civil society. Being in power
there grows all around a group of sycophants. The ruler
loses connection with the underprivileged rural and even
urban people and have very little knowledge about the real
needs and aspirations of the people. Facts are
misrepresented to him or not at all presented leading to gradual
wane of popularity.
Before independence, most of the political leaders of this
part of South Asia firmly believed in the ideals of freedom,
equality and popular participation in Government, as well as in
democratic institutions such as party system, parliament, a free
press, a neutral judiciary and civil service. They believed then,
once independence is achieved, shared views and democratic
institutions could be taken over and maintained. Liberty and
equality become the cry against the colonial powers and
democratic means were successfully practised in gaining
independence from the alien regimes. By forming nationalist
political parties and by using freedom of speech and right to
organise and demonstrate they effectively raised agitation and
ultimately were given independence.
After gaining independence, the original euphoria for
democracy fade away very soon. New realities became evident in
its vicious shape (i) that democracy can not be easily established
when there is illiteracy and ignorance in the grassroots level and
poverty preventing people from realising democratic virtues (ii)
that the game of politics is confined to a very small group of real
actors and even then there are factions (iii) that a democratic
constitution is helpless against easy procedure to amend and thus
depriving a firm legal basis for democratic stability (iv) that
politics is a dangerous game and that no politicians can afford
being replaced and (v) that in the political arena survival of the
strongest, most ruthless is the order of the day.
All these mean that the basic premises for sustaining
democracy and its institutions are absent in Bangladesh. Formal
democracy i.e. multiparty system and regular election and orderly
constitutional transfer of power from one rival political group to
another is there, but functional democracy that guarantees life and
living in total absent.. Although to the superficial observer
it would appear that total chaos has dominated the political
scene in Bangladesh in the past decades, the truth is that a
new political pattern based on liberalism professed by a
small group of intellectuals, politicians and professionals
has evolved with its own logic and dynamics and suited to
the present particular stage of socio-economic development.
The fact is that almost nowhere has the call for greater
democratic Freedom and popular participation in
Government died down altogether. It is being increasingly
heard among the large middle class. Eventual reappearance
of liberal democracy is almost inevitable.
The demands of the developed countries that the
developing nations prove their legitimacy and that the same
time follow there prescription for economic development
without caring for the recipient countries moral, choice,
culture and the choice of the people are but oppressive.
They should understand the realities in the power structure
in developing countries like Bangladesh. Popularity and
legitimacy are the result of good governance.
The new elite have already adopted, apparently
without much hesitation, the materialistic culture and the
value system of the west. Once a beginning has been made
in introducing western administration, education,
institution, the new ideas began to question old beliefs and
tradition of service for others. It has also found expression
in official policies. But a deliberate attempt to censure old
traditions or a particular national life style or to introduce a
new one considered more appropriate to a particular stage
of development is unlikely to succeed. Democracy can only
be ensured where old civilization be incorporated into the
modern development and political process. There is always
a provision for renaissance, re-discovery of old tradition and
values at a later date.
There seems to be a host of factors, some superficial, others more
profound, that constitute a peoples national character. But most of
them tend to share liberalism based on human values which form
an integral part of all major religion and philosophies that
embodies most important of all our common cultural and critical
values which development and modernization could not altogether
destroy till to-day. What people should endeavor to achieve is the
ability to enjoy the benefits of modern age and yet remain the
human beings that they are with all their human rights intact. The
mindset has to go back to norm for the resurgence of humanity
with all its mighty forces for standing erect in the commune of the
world of nations.
AGES OF DECEPTION
CURRENTY there is a debate about the suitability of
formal democracy in a country like Bangladesh. It is a
fierce one, but many among the political elite seem to be
pondering about the system’s efficacy, its future and
whether or not Bangladesh should opt for some other form
of democracy that would be able to meet the hopes and
aspirations of the people. However, one does become
exasperated while dealing with such assumption. After all
we all fought for functional democratic form of government
over and over again. That struggle even stretch back not
only since the independence of the country in 1971 but also
goes back into Pakistan period (1947-1971) when Bengali
intelligentsia resisted relentlessly the autocracy in guise of
democracy of the ruling coterie of Punjabi and also Bangali
elite in order to establish democracy that people have
earned after a protracted struggle and through a national
consensus. Why are people then such despair to be thinking
of replacing it? The answer to the query is quite
straightforward, the answer simply is that the system is not
working and people are finding it increasingly difficult to
identify with a system whose beneficial effects were
supposed to have improved their quality of life. On the
contrary, erosion of democratic institutions, pervasive
corruption institutionalized and then practiced by
consecutive governments, break down of law and order
culmination into state sponsored terrorism that terrorize the
ordinary citizens, violation of human rights, rampant
violence against women, and even children and low level
economic development have heightened the sense of
desperation among the people. Our much vaunted
democracy is still tied with foreign aid and still characterized by
patron-client relationship and our ruling elites’ behaviors
demonstrate a mindset of British institutionalized serfdom, which
reinforces sense of servitude before power on one hand, and fury
of arrogance towards the general mass on the other hand. Hence
the debate ensued. The questions thus arise: why is it not working
and what do we need to do in order to salvage the situation?
Answers to those queries, however, pose a formidable challenge to
analysts.
The history of formal democracy is almost as old the British rule
in India. And at the end of the colonial rule those South Asian
states who opted for parliamentary form of government were not
fully aware that this was one form of government that needed,
which all form democracies do, a frame of mind that understood
its operation, rules, guidelines, and the conventions and traditions
that shape and structure its functioning. They vaguely knew that
the system was based, besides the institutional framework, on trust
and delicate rules of game, a system that needed a nation, whether
it is multi-cultural or multi-racial, with an abiding faith in its
intrinsic values. But there was no such understanding among the
political elite about the necessity of these two equally important
components, their interdependence and inter linkages and that the
components needed to be inter woven. One could not do without
the other.
South Asian states, thus, opted for a system whose operation did
not solely depend on the democratic institutions left behind by the
British but on the societal values as well. They adopted a system
whose value system was somewhat alien to the people, for obvious
reasons of course. If history is any guide then one would discern
that the newly independent South Asian countries had no other
options but to adopt it because this was the only form of
democracy and its functioning they had been familiar with since
two hundred years .We all know the British introduced the system
in progressive phases, a fragmented institutional structure
and its operation mechanism at a time, in small doses, to
make the British Indian elite acclimatize with the system
and its modus operendi. Time and again they postponed
granting full-fledged self government on the plea that the
British Indians were neither ready nor capable of handing
such democratic governance that called for delicate
balancing among various religious, ethnic, linguistic
groups. Notwithstanding the leaders of South Asian states,
who adopted the mode, without having the commitment to
its ideals like humanism, rule of law, justice, equal
economic opportunities, greater intellectual and religious
freedom and its inherent values needed to translate those
ideals into reality. The result is a dismal failure in making
the system operational in most South Asian countries, gave
up and opted for disguised authoritarian model on the
pretax that it was not the kind of government that was to
usher in a new era of development fulfilling the
expectations of the people.
Bangladesh, as part of erstwhile Pakistan, had already been
exposed to all those arguments and counter arguments for
and against parliamentary form of government. Those
arguments seemed to have been put to rest once Bangladesh
broke the shackles of Pakistani rule and achieved
independence in 1971 after a nine months of bloody war.
The constitution adopted in 1972 prescribed a
parliamentary democracy in undiluted form without
statutory provisions restraining the powers of any
executive, the kind found in the developed democracies of
the west. As the constitution was adopted it looked like that
the country stood at and extraordinary moment of her
history after having come to the end of ‘history` and finding
ideal model that would solve a war torn country’s socio-economic
problems and establish an exploitation free society. Such apogee,
however, came crashing down with the declaration of a one-party
state. Since then people have experimented with pure martial law,
semi martial law regimes as well as semi authoritarian presidential
regime before making history one more time in 1991 by reverting
back to parliamentary form of government. Now it has been
almost a decade that we have been trying to make our nascent
parliamentary democracy work. We have had two peaceful
transfers of power and anxiously waiting to see its success. All
seem well but underneath like a lurking shadow, deep in out
hearts, we know that the system has floundered and has become
somewhat dysfunctional. Hence the revival of the nagging
questions about the form of democracy that is suitable for
Bangladesh. Though exasperated the question does have some
inherent value in the context of what has been happening in
Bangladesh since the reintroduction of parliamentary democracy.
Something then has gone wrong in Bangladesh that we are
confronted with such gloomy and bleak propositions. An analysis
of last one decade would probably help us throw some light in this
direction. 1991 was the beginning of a political democracy in the
country. We got the form as well as institutional framework like
parliament, political parties, western education elite, election
commission and civil military bureaucracy who were ready to
accept the supremacy of political leadership though much of it
were mere structures rather than substantive, but the framework
was in place. As a matter of fact in order to make institutional
framework stable and functioning a number of wrong conciliatory
approaches were adopted.
The quest for a stable democratic order has been evidenced in the
provision of 1972 constitution (Article.70) but it curtailed the
independence of the MPs and prevented the use of crucial
parliamentary mechanism like a motion of no confidence
and floor crossing. It was further reinforced in the 12th
amendment (Article70. sub clauses A.B.C) of the
constitution in 1991 for the same reasons. It was hoped that
with the functioning of the nascent democratic norms like
democratization of the political parties would evolve and
the system would stabilize with consolidation of democratic
institutions. Strengthening of the national democratic
institutions were also recommended by the USAID
sponsored democracy team of 1992 through the
democratization process i.e. regimes willingness to be
inclusive and bringing various groups into the system,
especially the peripheral groups like women and the poor.
But tragically both elected regimes paid lip service to the
ideals of democracy rather than putting spirit in its
functioning. As a result, though the stability of the regime
was ensured even at the cost Prime Ministerial dictatorship,
the institutional framework remained hollow. The
inevitability happened. The system degenerated and became
a naked struggle for power and the apparently stable order
soon i.e. within these years of its reintroduction, came
under severe pressure over the issue of holding the free and
fair election.
The issue of free and fair election is of utmost importance
in any democracy as it is through this mechanism that the
twin principles of the system’s popular base and source of
legitimacy are ensured. Indeed it was of great concern when
that crucial mechanism was tinkered with. An innovative
institution like caretaker government, which was to oversee
parliamentary election in order to prevent election
fraudulence, was again adopted through the 13th amendment
of the constitution though it was clearly an abridgment of
parliamentary spirit that is based on mutual trust. However, time
proved that is was not an end in itself. The 1996 election was
conducted under this novel institution but was unable to instill any
trust in the political environment and it was alleged that the ruling
party manipulated the electoral process in an unabating manner,
and the issue again and again reached its climax. Country’s
tumultuous politics, thus, is under severe strain with the main
stream opposition boycotting the parliament while demanding to
adopt a number of mechanisms like holding elections-by-elections
as well as local self government ones under the neutral caretaker
government. All these are indicative of a degenerative election
process of the country that in itself possess the greatest threat to
any democracy. Simultaneously lack of institutionalization has
given rise to unprecedented agitational and confrontational
politics, and rampant corruption eroding not only peoples’ faith in
the system but also underlining the institution like judiciary. The
societal fabrics are falling apart due to the deteriorating law and
order and the near absence of rule of law is creating havoc in
violating human rights to such an extent that Bangladesh has been
termed as the ‘torture house’ by many.
The onus for the malfunctioning of the formal democracy lies
squarely on the shoulders of the political parties. The role of
political parties in the democratization process can hardly be
overemphasized. They have been termed as the lifeblood of
democracy. The efficacious role of political elite in
institutionalizing the democratic norms constitutes a vital element
in laying the foundation of democracy. They are viable agents of
democratization and play the mediating role between the citizenry
and the state. In this context the truth is: the political parties in
Bangladesh did not live up to those expectations.
These have been evidenced in a recent study exposing the political
parties in Bangladesh through the interviews of political leaders of
parties in Bangladesh that they have failed as visible agents “in
sustaining a stable democratic order”. The nature of party
politics in the country with its lack of internal democracy,
practice of personality cult, factionalism and internecine
conflicts is such that the windows of opportunities created
since 1990 were not utilized because parties failed to bring
about a national solidarity and consensus through the art of
negotiation, compromise and accommodation. This has
been mainly due to the political atmosphere between the
political parties that is characterized by mutual distrust,
intolerance and antagonism.
The question arises as to why these mainstream parties all
of whom have a centrist position, and have more or less
similar manifestoes with regards to country’s social,
economic, and foreign policy issues are so far apart that
they do not hesitate to call each other anti-state. The answer
to that is though much of the animosity and mutual mistrust
are due to personal disliking of the leaders, but deep down
there remains the question of national identity and other
historical baggage that keep them poles apart. These images
have been intensified by a party’s perception of itself as
being the sole inheritor of the liberation of 1971, and thus
having a false moral claim on the state power. Its attempts
to set the history, which was falsely alleged of being
distorted by previous regimes and their strange perceptions
that those mainstream oppositions are not proper political
parties have made them acrimonious towards each other.
Their behavior and rivalry have adversely affected the
political culture of the country. Its manifestations are being
felt in the political climate as well that already is full of
hatred and violence. The statements given by the leaders are
personal, low, and obscene and have no relationship with
the politics. The results have been incitement of the masses
and increasing lawlessness. No democracy can functions in such
environment.
The onus also lies with the politicians because it was their
responsibilities, through their behavior, to create, at least lay the
foundation of a democratic political culture of distinctive set of
political values, and orientations from its citizens: moderation,
toleration, civility, efficacy, knowledge and participation. One
could not agree more about the imperative of such culture in order
to make democracy functional. However, it is also acknowledged
that such phenomenon is not likely to happen overnight in a
country like Bangladesh whose political culture is historically for
two hundred years characterized by atomism, patron-clienteles and
neo patrimonial. But the least the parties could do is to consciously
try to practice those norms that could form the foundation of
democratic culture and political education for the masses. The
failure of the political parties in this respect has been horrendous.
Instead of imparting political education to the masses the leaders
have provided causes, through their constant bickering and rivalry,
to their followers and activists to settle issues by means of
intimidation and violence.
The non-democratic mind-set of the political parties not only
vitiated the political atmosphere but also undermined and eroded
the foundation of nascent political institutions like bureaucracy
and judiciary. No serious attempts were made to resolve the
transitional problem like establishing a people oriented
constitutional and electoral system, rule of law by repealing anti-
democratic laws and possible security of the people separating
judiciary from the clutches of the executives. On the contrary,
blatant and pervasive politicization of bureaucracy and other
institutions have brought the governmental apparatus to a virtual
halt. And finally the most glaring failure of our political parties
has been their inability to create democratic oppositions whose
importance in a democracy has been constantly argued by
democratic theorists and emphasized on a fairly open
political environment for its evolution. That kind of
political environment calls for an inclusive regime that has
low “barriers” allowing the opposition opportunities for
expression, organization and representation of political
preferences. However, in Bangladesh’s entire history there
has only once been such an inclusive regime during general
Zia’s rule. But the opposition failed to grasp the
opportunity and employed all their trickery in vilifying him.
The fact of the matter is that the later governments have
been mostly hegemonic. The opposition was not simply
allowed to evolve.
As a result, Bangladesh parliament, where the vital national
issues were supposed to be discussed and resolved, stands
hollow and totally dysfunctional. The mainstream
opposition, like the opposition during the previous regime,
had been boycotting the parliament or walking out of it
without much reason. There is no existence of the
democratic opposition in the parliament, which is paid by
the exchequer, to bring to the fore the activities of the
executive by scrutinizing and censoring, and providing the
people an alternative government. Again, the political
parties, instead of nurturing a democratic opposition the
party which captures power with a “authoritarian within”
tendency has treated the opposition not on equal terms but
as an arch-enemy and has been all out to put the opposition
in disarray and thereby minimizing its capacity. The
throttling of opposition’s voice is easily discernible from
the parliamentary proceeding. Almost non existent hours
devoted to Private Member’s bills, and Speaker plays a
partisan role in not allowing opposition to participate in
meaningful debates. And unfortunately, there is valid
suspicion that the tendency may be continued as evidenced
by the ruling party learning mechanism of opposition repression
though filing of numerous alleged criminal cases against the
opposition MP’s. At present the political scenario is characterized
by opposition’s retreat into ‘backwardness’ while the party in
power sees itself in fulfilling some kind of destiny.
In the context of the above scenario it is then logical (though
exasperated) to be apprehensive of the future of democracy in
Bangladesh. And it is also discernible that the roles of the political
parties are the main reason for such a sorry state of affairs. We
have great hope that change would come to make much of a
difference. Until and unless there is a qualitative changes in the
mindset of our political leadership, democracy in whatever form
would have a rough sailing in the country. On the contrary, the
liberal democracy with the intricate scrutinizing mechanism has
greater chances of replacing present corrupt and authoritarian one.
Moreover, this is only form of government that people of
Bangladesh are now eagerly waiting to give a warm welcome.
So, given the chance it may flourish, especially in the context that
all are not negative, the Institute of Liberal Democracy, the think
tank for the people, for example, though not above criticism, has
contributed in political education and helped raise both social and
political awareness among the people. There are no threats of
military interventions into Bangladesh politics, but peoples
sentiment must be taken into account.
So the development of liberal democratic politics must be
encouraged to work out. In this context it is of utmost importance
for the nation that the results of the general elections be acceptable
to the people and the legitimacy of the winning party is not in
question. The main task now lay with a new civil society group
imbubed by the sprit of Liberal Democracy. They must come
forward on non-partisan basis and create awareness among the
people and build enough pressure so that the power contenders are
compelled to abide by the rules of the game and demonstrate their
commitment towards democracy and pave the way for
liberal democratic culture. For Bangladesh, it is essentially
a challenge to develop new institutions as well as processes
of governance. We have to find local solutions to complex
problems which are, global, regional and national in nature.
We need to redefine the role of the conventional democracy
which no longer can deliver the services required by people
living in rural and urban communities. Managing
simultaneously many interrelated problems, which are of
global, regional and national character represent the most
formidable challenge for our development in the coming
years. It is now apparent that government is not able to do
many things which we thought the democratic government
would be able to do back in the 70s. Government for
example, is not very good at running a business; it is not
good at operating banks or managing industries. We know
very well how much of a burden the public sector
enterprises have become---- they are now a big drain on the
economy. Ironically, the government has done poorly in
terms of traditional functions that every one expects the
government to perform. It has not been able to ensure
people oriented law and order; the judicial processes have
decayed; rule of law is yet to be established. In sum,
government is over regulating and stifling small scale
private initiatives in sectors where private enterprise can
grow and flourish. Whereas large scale initiatives are given
all assistance and the financial institutions providing
excessive loans that never comes back. Government is not
able on the other hand, taking measures to frame and
enforce regulations that protect and promote small scale
local based industries.
The development financing was never made available and
the funding needs have since increased many fold.
Bangladesh, one of the poor third world countries will never ber
able to raise a huge amount of capital. At the same time there is
growing evidence that mobilization of local resources and the
participation of those affected by those problems can go a long
way towards alleviating the burden of poverty and meeting basic
needs. Greater local responsibility for problem solving suggests a
new facilitating role for the government, and elements of the
emerging civil society. But the people have already seen
successful new ventures by the reactionary civic society
represented by interest groups, local communities, non-
government organizations, social development entrepreneurs and
private enterprises. These have aimed to tackle many of their big
problems to bring the poor unconscious people into their fold
through local initiatives. Bangladesh in sense has been a world
leader in creating new interface between civic society and the
rather inefficient, wasteful and corrupt government. Some NGOs
have provided a lead in developing new delivery systems for
social and financial services reaching the bottom poor where
government programs had bypassed them in the past. But steps
must be taken to stop immediately the activities of those NGOs
which carry on lending business with high interest rate and also
are engaged in implanting obscene, dehumanizing, free for all
Vedic and Western culture that speaks for submission. Their
“trickle down policy” kills peoples urge for self-realization as well
as actualization.
The key to meeting our development needs in the short term seems
to be the participation of people directly concerned, in solving the
big problems locally keeping national tradition and heritage intact.
Liberal Democracy is on the move to provide incentives to
facilitate creation of new institutions outside the government.
Local level solutions involve firstly setting up new institutions and
new enterprises for delivering resources and also for receiving
them. There could be various categories of new enterprises that
need to be encouraged to do the things, which the
government has not been able to do. There should be more
target oriented delivery systems to provide social services
like political education, health care, housing and rural
infrastructure. A micro-finance institution under Institute of
Liberal Democracy is much needed to provide phisical
services targeted at the rural poor. The urban sector
however, still remains untouched in spite of the very rapid
rate of urbanization in Bangladesh. One can also visualize
the immediate need for a new generation of financial
institutions to provide venture finance to small
entrepreneurs both in the rural and urban sectors. Evidence
form regional countries clearly show the importance of
small and medium enterprises which generates rural non-
farm employment and income opportunities for surplus
population released from the agriculture sector.
It would involve new participatory processes for decision
making at the local levels. We need democratic institutions
at the grass roots so that concerned people can participate in
local governance. The primary task is to allow accountable
and democratic local government system to emerge as close
to the people as possible--preferably at the village level.
Strengthening local governments and setting up a genuinely
decentralized political system would need downsizing the
national government, scaling down its operations and
disinvestment of public enterprises. To accomplish these
tasks we would require a firm political commitment and a
strong civil society with devotion to the cause of the people
as human beings and the nation as a whole.
Undoubtedly Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was most powerful
person since 1969 till his gruesome death. Posing such an
outward expression of democratic instinct it was difficult to
believe that he had embarked on such a course of stamping
out dissent and opposition by throwing his political opponents in
prison and gagging the Four Estate- the printed and electronic
media by clamping down pre-censorship and letter closing down
all of those expect government controlled four. It was indeed
tragic that leader like him could stoop to such a level only to
ensure the power does not slip out of his grip. A consummate
politician and a most wielders of power he was endowed with
tenacity to doggedly fight back and succeed in the face of
stupendous adversity with a rare capacity to endear himself to the
public at large by his ability to strike instant rapport with the
masses and an extra ordinary charisma lay at the source of his
outstanding popularity. The toiling multitude in the lowest rungs
of the socio-economic ladder was mesmerized by his stirring call
to banish poverty and he recorded decisive victory through
effective exploitation of oppression consciousness that he aroused
in the public. He made not even any effort to make the preliminary
moves to translate into reality the catchy slogan of socialism, leave
aside trying to implement it in the right earnest. And for that very
purpose he had no compunction in destroying institution starting
from his own organization, which was, sought to be emasculated
by draining out inner party democracy so as to develop the culture
of sycophancy shorn of any commitment to values. His cynical
attitude to politics, reveal best in his approach to the problems
resulted is not only his gruesome end but also the shocking rise of
a devastating anti Awami League sentiment in the public. It is
people could realize at last that they were betrayed by him and that
he furthered his personal interest essentially to establish and there
after reinforce his stranglehold on power. Reaching out to people,
particularly the dispossessed and underprivileged, he persecuted
the underdog.
As everywhere also the result of such repression have with rare
exception-been bad-for the country, for the people and even for
the Armed forces, particularly their readiness and the capacity to
shoulder the responsibility of defending the country against
internal fifth columnists and external hege monists-threat.
Political and other long cherished values have gradually
been eroded and the slow death of various national
institutions has been witnessed. These institutions are much
easy to destroy but their restructuring takes time and great
effort. The attempt to prolong undemocratic repressive rule
has most of time caused a cataclysm. During this painful
process of aggrandizing the leadership, with eager goading
of opportunists and sycophants, has developed a philosophy
of some sort, which justified the betrayal of oaths solemnly
sworn on the Holy Book, and the violations of the
fundamental law of the land. Sk. Mujib also justified the
introduction of a harsh regime to impose the regimes cruel
control of the people, the use of the sheer force, the
dungeon and the fetter in order to break the will of the
downtrodden people who wanted to resist the new order.
The pliant bureaucracy invariably falls in happily with
every dictatorship, helps gleefully to prepare schemes to
hood wink the people, and contentedly translates
preemptory orders into drafts that can be given the from of
laws. The judiciary and also be suborned, and with a formal
expression of mild disapproval judges sit down to invent
rules convenient for the ruler. All these are done with
smugness and self righteousness that are beyond the
comprehension of ordinary mortals. These self satisfied
people persist with their rationalizations until a day comes
when they are retired or forced to vacate their chairs and are
denied the higher offices they had coveted or had been
promised. Then they sink into their holes and mutter
bitterly about wrongs, betrayals and false promises and
some even muster the temerity to deny personal culpability
for acts of perfidy-acts that helped to deprive many peoples of
their peace, their liberty and some even their lives.
These persons have entered the portals with no mandate; no
authority to represent the people, and the only advance they work
for is self-advancement. During the long years of political
stagnation, many things turn upside down, inside out outside in.
Once there were rigid rules governing military aid to civil power,
now the situation can be best described civil aid to non-civil
power, although political parties are in function, the basic model is
that of apolitical elements which allow anyone with huge funds
and unauthorized arms power and manipulation to intimidate the
people and win a seat in the legislature. The system introduced in
the 1970’s more or less remained intact. Now the abnormal is
treated as normal. Seemingly it is expected that the present system
will survive through the years with strangely balanced diarchy.
And this long-term plan seems to imply that people will never be
given the right freely to choose their rulers and to determine the
course of events. Instead the present regimes leadership has taken
upon itself the responsibilities of defining the country’s
ideological frontiers that were never known to its people.
Apart from the physical force of the politicians and its inherent
organized strength furnished and paid by the unscrupulous
businessmen and industrialists and the foreign hegemonies, two
main groups act as willing chief collaborator and supporters of
every regime. The quickest to answer the self-aggrandizing
politicians call are the tribe of senior bureaucrats who under the
umbrella of anti people rule come to their own are able to exercise
authority that can no longer be questioned. With unsubtle flattery
they manage to convince the rules that everything they wish to do
in feasible and also that bureaucratic cooperation is vital for the
administrative structure. The second category are the feudal type
of professional politicians who seem unable to breath in comfort
without access to corridors of power at some level. Most of them
are not burdened with a conscience or gifted with political
consciousness and can offer their services to who ever in
power without feeling any qualm or shame. They can
always think of a plausible excuse for breaking with apart
when it is no longer in power if there seems to be little hope
to return to office. Politicians of this class are the most
potent source of political corruption and are also
responsible for spreading corruptions in the administration
from the level of an office assistant upwards to the highest
bureaucrats. Those can be described as political
mercenaries, many urbanites imbibe similar ambitions and
ape the conduct and even dress of the main beneficiaries. It
is not easy to determine which group has done greater
harm, the weasel faced bureaucrats or the luxury loving
uplifted anti people one man party politicians. It is certain
any how that between them they have succeeded in
blocking the country’s political advance and hindering its
socio-economic progress. They have used all their influence
and power to keep dependant on the west and neighboring
big brother. If they have any loyality, it is to their class
interest and to their foreign masters. It can be seen that their
likes and dislikes, their love and hates, what they cherish
and wish to preserve have all been inherited from their
benefactors, even to the extent of retaining an ill concealed
contempt for the mass people. They find themselves totally
alienated from the ordinary people the peasants and the
worker, the clerks and the shopkeepers, those who have to
work with their hands and their brains, all the poor natives
without the veneer acquired through elitist education or
foreign travel.
It seems plain that if Bangladesh is to grow and develop
certain basic changes are absolutely essential. For too long,
political power has been usurped by party nominated self
seeker politicians who upheld of class interest bureaucrats with
unpleasant, some times catastrophic consequences. The worse is to
come unless people’s prolonged ouster can be ended and their full
rights as free citizens of an independent nation restored of them.