Good Governance In Bangladesh: A Quest For Democracy
By M Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury
19 January, 2014
Countercurrents.org
1.0 Introduction
The quest for democracy in Bangladesh is moving in circles. The country gained its independence through both the democratic process and through war. During the four decades of its existence as a nation-state it has endured spells of military and non-military rules. Of the latter all were not elected and the elected governments themselves seemed to betray a superficial and perfunctory commitment to the norms and practices of democracy (Islam, 2004a).
Bangladesh’s current debate of politics relates to the way the Caretaker Government (CTG), which started in 1991, raised issues of mistrust, suspicion, discord and enmity in politics. Such concerns have coloured Bangladeshi politics throughout the period to 2011, at which point the CTG was abolished (CNN, 2011; Hanley, 2005). The sitting government succeeded a military backed civilian caretaker government which took over amidst violent feuds among the sitting government and the opposition on the questions of the leadership of the mandatory pre-election caretaker (itself an invention introduced to forestall electoral malpractices by the sitting government), the membership of the election commission, voter list and even the type of ballot-boxes to be used (Khan, 2011). As if this is not enough the present sitting government at whose insistence, when in opposition, the novelty of pre-election caretaker government was introduced has made a complete volte face on its own invention, whereas the then sitting government, now the opposition, has vowed to boycott any election under its opponent. It underscores a thin and brittle veneer of democracy and a potential lurch towards an unelected government yet again. In this connection it is worth noting that the crusader of democracy who founded the nation-state and setup the multiparty parliamentary democracy had no less spectacular volte face; for with three years they opted for a one party dictatorship! (Osman, 2010).
Under the present world system based on nation-state representative democracy is indispensable. The question is what lay behind this apparent inability of the Bangladesh political classes to practice and sustain democracy (Kelly and Ashiagbor, 2013; Daily Star, 2012b).
This chapter is divided into four main parts. The first part of this paper is an overview of various academic theories and definitions of 'democracy' and specifically 'consolidated democracy'. The second part consists of a narrative history of Bangladeshi democratisation and governance. The third part presents introduction to historical institutionalism and idea of 'path dependency'. The fourth part provides the introduction to factors in Bangladesh that hinder democratic development (i.e. path dependencies, or may be results of path dependencies). A final part (conclusion) summarises with suggestions of solution to the problems of democracy and good governance in Bangladesh.
Part 1
1.1 Theoretical perspective
This part aims to present an overview of various academic theories and definitions of 'democracy' and specifically 'consolidated democracy'. There is no universally agreed definition of democracy. However, it has been the most traded phenomenon in the worldwide political marketplace. Across the countries politicians use this notion in running the statecraft or governance for various reasons. Sometimes it has been used for right purpose and sometimes wrong. This term has been used as the catchword of political discourse (Schmitter and Karl 1991). “Today liberal democracy is the ‘only game in town’ (Chowdhury, 2011; Motohi, 2002); but we are free, of course, to play it badly” (Sartori 1991). Since beginning phrase of democracy echoes in the mind of people and resounds in their lips. People struggle for democracy to find freedom and a better way of life (Ibid). Bangladeshi people’s struggle for democracy is relentless (Maniruzzaman, 1990).
Most authors (Mahoney, 2001; Milam, 2009) emphasise on three main elements of democracy. They are freedom or liberty, free and fair elections and meaningful political competition. Democratic structure needs to ensure “integrity of political competition and participation” (Hagerty, 2007). Indeed, democracy is a system of power sharing with all groups. As far as decision making is concerned it acts as a political force with authority. Linz argues, there is no alternative to institutionalisation of democracy, where all major actors, parties, or organised interests, forces or institutions involve (Linz and Stephan 1997; Hossain and Siddique, 2006). Contrarily, Harriss (2006) defined; democracy is consolidated only when all major groups come to both accept and defend democratic rules and procedures.
The system was not designed to meet the requirements of the state and people of Bangladesh. Centralisation and decentralisation’s meaning is disputed (Smith, 1985). Pluralists value decentralisation as a virtue in all major forms. Tocqueville argues decentralised legal authority of federal constitutions (Datta, 2005).
Fakhrul (2002) evaluates, history of democracy begins in 1776. It coincided with American Revolution. Dahl considers democracy as an idea of representation. For Diamond and Morlino, "tend to move together democratic improvements and deepening or toward decay" (Grugel, 2002).
In the long run democracy is the safest means to solve the problems. People have been facing e.g. lack of decentralisation, corruption, ineffective parliament, violence, discord, mistrust and enmity (Chowdhury, 2011). There is a school of thought that argues democracy in a society such as Bangladesh exacerbates rather than resolves problems. There is a question whether there is one common model of democracy that fits every society (Devin, 2008). Sometimes benevolent dictators run the country better. Good governance can exist even in non-democratic regimes (Hall and Taylor, 1996).
‘Good’ governance is an essential prerequisite for any country. Governance includes sound development management in relation to public sector management, accountability, the legal framework for development and information and transparency (Haq, 2010). Donors and development partners use the word ‘good’ with governance since 80’s. World Bank uses this term since 1978 (Chowdhury, 2008a). It classified good governance and poor governance in the sense of both effective and ineffective performances of the governments. Ideal and satisfactory system of government has also been as good governance (Chowdhury, 2007a).
Failure of politicians to establish good governance results in military intervention. Although military often play role in governance e.g. military personnel used to work for checking terrorism, anti-corruption drive, flood and cyclone control, building infra-structure and bridges even sometimes work to ease worst traffic situation.
CMR- Civil Military relations mean a relation between civilian political government and the military. Military’s intervention into politics is another dimension in Bangladesh. There are three views on CMR (Anisuzzaman, 2000). The first view considers military as an apolitical and conservative force, which is untrained to involve in civilian rule as well as political management. However, it added that military has an inherent institutional desire to serve its corporate interest. For this reason it is incapable to lead the modernised nations. Lieuwen asserts that military is not a force for change (Chapman, 1990). Baxter (1992) supports this argument. He emphasizes distinction between modernisation and development. The development involves the building of political institutions, which is far away from military rule.
Bassford (1994) and Perrow (2006) agreed about the younger military officer’s effort of reform and attempt to make some changes to alter present situations slightly. However, the changes may not occur finally, he admitted. Bangladesh’s 1982 military intervention showed same thing where young military officers tried to reform political organisations and government institutions (Baxter, 1991).
A second view argues that revolution is the only mechanism. Development and reform can be brought under this initiative (Ahmed, 2003). It argues that regular military is the principal obstacle to this process in developing nations. In this argument scholars compared with Latin America’s military interventions (Ahmed, 1994). In spite of differences of opinion to the main thrust, this view is partly related to the first opinion of military conservatism. It rejects the notion that developing countries military is capable of real development and stressed a neo-Marxist viewpoint. Huntington (1991) and Hossain and Siddique (2004) experimented on this thought in Latin America. They thought military is dependent on ‘big powers’ for military equipments and trainings. Hadenious (1997) believes African military is reactionary. However, he gives good marks to Congo-Brazzaville and military rulers of Ethiopia Marxist orientation. On the other hand, Jahan (2008) expresses high expectation about African military saying that this force is more effective than political parties.
Finally, according to the third view, military values, skills, ideologies are the antithesis of the first. As this opinion stands: military politicians in the developing countries (third world) would make the best as they are the reliable manager to change the society. Khan (1989) and Kochanek (1998) are supporters of military rule in the under-developed countries (third world). Among others, Shils (1962) and Johnson (1964) are in favour of this view. On the contrary, Lifschultz, (1979) is not convinced about military’s capability to run the country for long time.
Generally CMR in democracy especially in an electoral political order is not always democratic. However, ‘it has been a growth-industry in illiberal democracies’ (Zakaria, 1997a).
Military interventions in politics began on the earth before last century. From the period of ancient Greece up to twentieth century, the displacement or the threat for displacement of an elected government by overt military action has been a recurrent theme in academic literature. Previously analysts looked at military institution as ‘an alien and demonic’, after the Second World War political scientists viewed it differently. It was argued that ‘a military man cannot be a good man’ (Zafarullah, 1996).
Riaz (2003) tried to overcome Huntington’s model’s limitations and differentiated civil-military relations in western countries from others. He made western countries CMR into three categories as aristocratic, democratic and totalitarian while for peripheral states it was classified into five categories e.g. authoritarian-personal, authoritarian-mass, democratic- competitive, civil-military coalition and military oligarchy (Momen, 2008). His typology has the problem that it does not consider civilian leaders degree of autonomy given by the military.
On the contrary, Momen's typology consists of three factors: the strength and weakness of civilian institutions, the strength and weakness of military institutions and the coercive, political and organisational resources at their disposal and the nature of the boundaries between the military establishment and its socio-political environment (Murshid, 2008).
Momen's typology has a problem that it neglects the role of international political, economic and military role on a country’s civil-military relations (Rahman 2007b) gave supplementary definition. He found three types military intervention: one, military behind the government, two, after overthrowing civilian government military’s short period regime and the last one is an ambitious group wants to do politics with agenda of society’s reform (Rashiduzzaman, 2001a). Karabelias (1998) classified four types of military regimes. They are veto, moderator, factional and breakthrough. The next part looks into Bangladesh’s democratic and governance position in the context of above theories.
Part 2
1.2 Democracy in Bangladesh
This part states narrative history of Bangladeshi democratisation and governance. It analyses the politics of Bangladesh and democratic problems during various regimes. Democracy is not a ‘yes or no’ question. It is complicated and changes with time. Bangladesh joined Huntington (1991) “third wave of democracy” after ousting extra- constitutional military backed government in January 2009. The country had joined similar situation in 1990 toppling another military regime of 9 years (Jahan 2008). Bangladesh witnessed various types of governance including Parliamentary, Presidential, Caretaker Government (CTG) and Military form. Yet the country is in trial and error system of democracy (Islam, 2005a).
In Bangladesh, political organisations and government institutions are not following standard procedure. Country’s human Rights situation is a serious issue (IDEA, 2006). Governance in Bangladesh lies with ruling party where opposition does not have a say. Always ruling party governed alone and opposition fights on the street. Both the parties demonstrate the same to meet their demand as opposition and oppose in same way while in the government (Islam, 2004b).
Bangladesh is a people’s republic, although people have only a say on the day of election every after 5 years (Schaffer, 2002). However, that special day which still keeps the democratic process in the country, but in a vulnerable position. Bangladeshi people’s constitutional rights to practice democracy in each and every tier of the administration are yet to be achieved (Schaffer, 2002).
After independence, democracy was buried by politicians and one party rule began (Talbot, 1998). It was followed by military take over. The main leader’s enormous charisma was matched with unsound vision of Bangladeshi people in the post liberation era (Thelen, 2004).
Following independence in 1971 ruling Awami League adopted Bangladesh’s constitution with basic principles of Bengalee nationalism, parliamentary democracy, socialism and secularism in 1972 (Zakaria, 1997b). First leadership under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman amended the constitution to the one party rule with Presidential system in 1975. The authoritarian system curtailed people’s right, freedom and liberties with abolishment of democracy. Later it was followed by a change over by dissident group of same party and then by military rule until 1979 (Stern, 2001). Three main leaders Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Ziaur Rahman and Hussain Muhammd Ershad ruled the country from 1972 to 1990 (Rashiduzzaman, 2001b). Their founded parties Awami League, Bangladesh Nationalist Pary (BNP) and Jatiya Party (JP) are the mainstream parties in Bangladesh. Fourth biggest party is Jamaat-e Islami. After Mujib, Zia and Ershad’s regimes, BNP and Awami League are in the helms of affair of Bangladesh governance again from 1991 to till date under the leadership of Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed respectively. They represent late Mujib and late Zia and have been leading two cults in the country (Przeworski, 1996).
After Sheikh Mujib, Ziaur Rahman emerged as leader of the country and amended the constitution. The basic two principles Bengalee nationalism and secularism were replaced by Bangladeshi Nationalism and the majority’s value and culture Islamic ideals respectively while principle socialism was renamed as social justice (Rahaman, 2010). In the backdrop of the political scenario of Bangladesh, country has been divided into two blocks. Although all the parties are more or less agreed that Bangladesh should be governed based on majorities’ opinion, value, belief and culture, still there is confusion on nationalism and belief (Rockman, 2000). Controversy has now been minimised by ruling party with adoption of State Religion and Bangladeshi nationality (Riaz, 2005). Awami League maintains relations with secularism and Islam as well as Bengalee and Bangladeshi simultaneously for mere political benefit to win over the voters (Steinmo, 1992).
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of late President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman while former Prime Minister (present leader of the opposition) Khaleda Zia is the wife of late President Ziaur Rahman. Apart from this legacy, former President H M Ershad still leads the third party JP and Jamaate Islami is the fourth largest party (Steinmo, 1992).
In Bangladesh democracy has been restored in 1991 (Rashiduzzaman, 1994). Simultaneously, it is threatened by confrontational politics since then. The country witnessed four general elections with an extra-constitutional period of army backed government for two years in 2007-08 period and with an abortive military coup in 1996. To ensure neutrality and fairness in elections political parties agreed to introduce CTG system constitutionally in 1996 (Rashiduzzaman, 1997). Power is fully centralised in the country. Bangladesh lacks parliamentary or joint ministerial responsibility. Rather it is termed as Prime Ministerial type of democracy which was inherited from earlier Presidential system (Daily Star, 2011). Parliamentary Standing Committees are almost non-functional. Constitutional bodies including Judiciary, Anti-Corruption Commission, Public Service Commission and Human Rights Commission became government tools instead of independent bodies (Khan, 2005). These institutions became more problematic in recent days.
From 1991 to 2006 there was a “minimalist democracy”, where Bangladesh made gradual progress in respect to participatory elections, peaceful power transfer to majority party and continued civilian rule (Khan, 2011). Within this period, the country organised three elections in 1991, 1996 and 2001 respectively. International elections monitors and observers certified them as free and fair polls. Then many factors including army and international involvement ensured peaceful transfer of power (Islam, 2006). In between these periods military leaders were in favour of civilian control except only in 1996 Caretaker regime when there was an abortive military coup led by Lt. General A S M Nasim. That coup was failed as military leaders supported then President Abdur Rahman Biswas (Ittefaq, 1995).
Although there is a dispute about definition of democracy worldwide, the democracy is the safest way of governance where people can practice their rights. Good governance is essential prerequisite for democratic consolidation. There is no alternative to institutionalisation of democracy, where all major actors, parties, or organised interests, forces or institutions involve (ICISS, 2001).
Present political crisis started on 28 December, 1994 when after walk outs and long boycott as well as observing hartals and street agitation. Awami League led opposition parties MPs resigned en masse in protesting against ‘rigging’ in a bye-election of a parliamentary seat in a Magura constituency (Hasanuzzaman, 1998). Followed by the election, the demand came from then opposition parties to incorporate CTG in the constitution. To solve the deadlock situation then there was a mediation effort from Commonwealth Secretary General Chief Emeka Anyaoku, which failed finally (Ittefaq, 1995). Then as the special envoy of the Secretary General former Governor General and Justice of Australia Sir Ninian Stephen parleyed to solve that political crisis in vain. In that situation, opposition parties did not participate in the parliamentary election in 15 February 1996. Under the pressure from opposition, ruling BNP passed 13th amendment of the constitution on 26 March 1996, which introduced the Caretaker Government system during parliamentary election period. Besides, there was an election held under a consensus CTG in 1991 following the fall of military turned authoritarian rule. Under new system of non-party CTG the next election was held on 12 June 1996, where Awami League won. Like predecessor, new opposition BNP followed the path of Awami League in walk out and boycott, hartals and street violence (Hagerty, 2007). In the following elections of 2001 BNP and its allies gained a landslide victory. Awami League again started observing frequent hartals, agitation, boycott the parliament. AL was absent in parliament session of 2005 for 61 days out of 62 days (Islam, 2005b). Main issues of that political movement were who will be the next CTG chief, who will be Election Commissioners and who will have the defence ministry during CTG period (Islam, 2005).
Some new phenomenon added fuel to fire as government decided at least three issues, which was not accepted by opposition. They are increasing of Supreme Court Judges retirement age, government’s refusal to allocate defense ministry to Chief Adviser of CTG instead of President and reconstitution of Election Commission issue. Awami League led opposition alleged that to make a pro-BNP man Justice K M Hassan the Chief Adviser the 14th amendment of the constitution was passed which increased retirement age of Supreme Court Judges, they did not accept the President as defence minister during CTG period and Justice M A Aziz as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) (Daily Star, 2001). Opposition expressed doubt about a free and fair election to be held. Both main rivalry parties attended dialogue to solve crisis and they solved 30 issues but one, which was about CTG chief issue. Dialogue ended there. “Thus the next general election due to be held in January, 2007 looks little uncertain” (Chowdhury, 2010). Situation became volatile as opposition went for street violence again to meet their demand.
Awami League and their allies’ organised countrywide blockade and violence with country made arms and weapons called ‘Logi-Boitha’ (indigenous stick and paddle used as weapons on the street) on 28 October which day was the last day of the BNP government’s tenure (Chowdhury, 2011). As there was no solution of political stalemate in the worst situation the Chief Adviser in waiting Justice Hassan refused to take his constitutional responsibility. A dialogue was arranged between President and four major parties representing the parliament in order to agree to appoint a new CTG chief within the purview of the constitution. But arch-rival parties could not come to a solution. There were 5 options to appoint the CTG chief, which were exhausted for the non-co-operation of political parties. Finally the President had to take over as the Chief Adviser in addition to his responsibility in line with the sixth and the last option given in the constitution. CTG started its journey on 29 October 2006 (Daily Star, 2012b).
An army group tried to take power into their grief, wanted to hold one sided elections, instigate some parties to continue street violence, foiled CTG’s army deployment in aid to civil power to restore law and order and planned to declare a state of emergency in disguise (Chowdhury 2007, 2008, Amar Desh 2008, Daily Star, 2011). President’s Adviser Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury, who is the author of this research paper, mediated with two top leaders met their demands and brought all political parties into election by 26 December 2006 (Daily Star, 2012b). However, the army group with association of some political leaders managed to cancel Jatiya Party Chief H M Ershad’s nomination. They created a situation where agitating parties withdrew en masse on 3 January 2007 from 22 January 2007’s planned election competition (Independent, 2007). Finally, army chief and his group took over power on 11 January 2007 using the cancellation of JP Chairman’s nomination as trump card (Daily Star, 2011).
Army chief failed to become the President of Bangladesh and had to go back to barrack after made a mess in Bangladesh governance. They tried to minus two top leaders, arrested hundreds of thousand leaders and made themselves involved in corruption instead of organise drive against this (Devin, 2008). Military-backed government ruled Bangladesh for two years and handed over power to Awami League through election. Military returned to barrack following international pressure and Moeen’s proposal sent to USA State Department to switch over to Martial Law from State of Emergency was outright rejected (Chowdhury, 2008a; Daily Star, 2011). AL received more than three-fourth majority, which was unusual as Sheikh Hasina expected 160-170 seats in the 300 direct seats of parliament. Khaleda Zia alleged that in the army manipulated elections AL was given unusual seats in the parliament to amend the constitution in their favour. Khaleda Zia also claimed in a public meeting in 2009 about she refused an army formula where proposal was given that army chief and his associates those who were involved in 11 January military coup will not be tried and in return she has been assured that her party will be given three-fourth seats (Haq, 2010). On the other hand, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made comment that she could make third major party leader Ershad the opposition leader instead of Khaleda Zia (Daily Star, 2012b).
After two years of unconstitutional rule, although Bangladesh backed to democratic process but it follows same path of vengeance, violence, discord. Situation of human rights is serious. Army government’s some good initiatives including reform in the various sectors and political organisations and government institutions were abandoned. Missing, disappearance, abduction and killing of opponent are everyday picture (Hanley, 2006). Moreover, ruling party AL abolished CTG system in 2011 unilaterally using a incomplete and short verdict of ‘partisan’ court (Khan, 2011). CTG was the last resort to check a minimal fair election where there was scope to change the government after 5 years, which has now gone (Moniruzzaman, 2009).
Bangladesh witnessed a result of civil-military relations while a new government emerged on 7 November 1975, when there was no-government situation prevailed in the country. The situation emerged through a combination of civil and military effort following series of military coups-counter coups (Maniruzzaman, 1990). Besides, CMR worked again in 1996 when civil bureaucrats came out to the street joining political platform ‘Janatar Mancha’ and a military coup happened afterwards. Similarity is civil and military forces worked together on the both occasions and dissimilarity is the first one was not directly under political party’s leadership and second one was so (Motohi, 2002).
Bangladesh’s current political situation has similarity with the situation of 2006 prior to military intervention occurred in 2007 that lasted until the beginning of 2009, a period of critical juncture. That period showed a path dependency which lasted for a longer time than the period of critical juncture (Osman, 2010).
Thus Bangladeshi process of democratic consolidation has again in a critical juncture. A simple issue of free and fair election created this situation. The issue is the centre point of historical forces. It shaped the present politics of the country (Rahaman, 2010). Continuation of this contentious politics can create a serious repercussion on the governance of Bangladesh. It can affect on economy as well as political stability in the country. Development partners are concerned for free and fair elections in Bangladesh and urged to have a mechanism to hold neutral and impartial administration to run the country during general elections and to stop human rights violation as well as political violence (Moniruzzaman, 2009). Due to crises Bangladesh has been facing critical junctures, where path dependencies occur as well (Khan, 2011).
Part 3
1.3 Historical Institutionalism (HI), Critical Juncture and Path dependency in Bangladesh
This part provides an introduction to historical institutionalism (HI) and idea of 'path dependency' with reference to critical juncture. HI is the one of the approaches in social sciences to understand politics. This approach needs to be looked into in a historical and comparative context. It also needs to see that where the approach was originated and how it is different from other approaches. HI approach has two important parts; critical junctures and path dependency (Khan, 2005).
Historical institutionalists stand between the two views: human beings are both norm abiding rule followers and self- interested rational actors. How one behaves depends on the individual, on the context and on the rule (Kochanek, 1998). Historical Institutionalism (HI) focuses well on institutions and the ways they change over time; traces path dependencies and the way that decisions and structures have long term effects; and makes very complex issues easier to understand (Lifschultz, 1979).
The hindrances to democracy in Bangladesh are potential sources or results of historical institutionalism path dependencies. Institutional hindrances are directly related to path-dependency and institutionalism approach. These are lack of Government neutrality, role of judiciary and law enforcement, decentralization. Military interventions happened as path dependencies. Political failures invite these interventions. Critical junctures and path dependency cycle in the country and path has not been shaped yet (Mahoney, 2001).
Cultural as well as social hindrances have been a result of previous political choices and events. So path dependency is relevant here too. Mistrust, suspicion, discord and crisis of identity are historical legacy. Some of them begun from colonial legacy and war of secession and some others started with restoration of democracy in 1991. Individual (agent-centred) hindrances are sometimes related to political decisions and path-dependency as well (Dyer, 2013).
Historical Institutionalism (HI) is appropriate in evaluating Bangladesh governance. Bangladesh has been witnessing many critical junctures, which ended in path dependency (Kochanek, 1998). The country now also faces a critical juncture based on Caretaker Government Issue during holding parliament elections as rivalry political parties are in daggers point. Limitation of HI is it does path dependence, but does not make path shaping. However, history matters in Bangladesh politics (Khan, 2011).
Historical Institutionalism (HI) provides a valid and powerful theory to evaluate the democratic development as well as legacies. Conception of HI is the policy choices of institution and its impact on future policy. The policy is based on long-range determining effect. This argument is called ‘path dependency’. In other word, history matters as ‘path dependency’. Path dependency does not mean the present and future is determined by past decisions. Past decision set the context in which contemporary decisions are taken (Islam, 2005b). This includes the decisions made both in statistical sense (‘history matters’) and in respect of chaos theory (‘small changes matter’). For the HI approach Thelen (1991) has major contributions.
HI consists of historical legacy and persistence of institutions. The policy choices made when an institution was formulated or when new policy was initiated would have a persistent crucial influence over time. It is opposite to behaviouralism and rational choice theory (Hossain and Siddiquee, 2006). Sunk cost- the cost of constructing the existing arrangement or transaction cost of a new formation might prevent policy reform. Positive feedback effect is once new path-shaping occurred; actors strengthen the new system as well as adjust the new logic (Islam, 2004b).
In HI, institution is formal and organisational to informal and amorphous (e.g., rules, procedures, norms etc.). An institution is ‘a collection of values and rules, largely normative rather than cognitive in the way in which they impact on institutional members as well as the routines that are developed and enforce those values’ (Huq, 1973).
To analyse the theory it is essential to discuss the key themes of HI. It needs to see the explanations and responses of key themes of HI as well. The way changes occur in HI –Punctuated equilibrium: an equilibrium state of institutions in favour of initial institutional choice or previous punctuation (open to change if there is a substantial environmental change or pressure).
Critical juncture---existing path can be changed when inherent dilemmas occur or institutional arrangement has become undermined (at that time a window of opportunity is opened, and old and new factors begin to struggle over how to change current policy; the old path affects the shaping of the new path). Power distributional approach---political negotiation and transfer of coalitional foundation can make change. ‘Historical institutionalists accepted the contention that conflict among rival groups for scarce resources lies at the heart of politics, but they sought better explanations for the distinctiveness of national political outcomes and for the inequalities that mark these outcomes’ (Hall & Taylor 1996/6).
Individual’s role –Traditional version: In HI the role of actors shrunk to a minimum. New explanations---political change can occur when there is a conflict of coalitions of actors seeking change or observation of the existing institution (IDEA, 2006). The role of ideas and cultures– Institutional transformation---ideas and cultures can formulate or change the preferences of individuals, which can crucially affect a transformation.
HI approach has some limits and weaknesses –HI only explains the past (cannot explain the present or predict the future) (Islam, 2004b). It is not good at explaining institutional performance or what a good institution is (main purpose of this approach is to institutional endurance and its policies rather than assess the performance of institutions, which is the main task of old version institutionalism). HI has difficulty explaining the role of agency (the traditional stance of HI puts structural constraints over agencies) (Allen, 1994).
1.3.1 Historical legacy
People of Bangladesh are almost homogeneous (ICISS, 2001). The country has colonial legacy and the legacy of the war of secession. Bangladesh does not have any sectarian, ethnic or communal problems. But the society and its culture are politicised (Ittefaq, 1975). Politics is divisive and based on grievances. Although political parties suffered a lot during the last military regime they failed to consolidate democracy. There is no co-operation between rivalry political parties. This political feature of vendettas can be termed as historical and ideological (Islam, 2004b).
Awami League finds it difficult to recognise BNP as a legitimate contender. It evaluated BNP is beneficiary following topple of AL. On the other hand, BNP observed that AL buried democracy with introduction of Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BKSAL) and BNP reintroduced multi party democracy with new birth of AL in Bangladesh politics (Chowdhury, 2007a).
Bangladesh has been facing critical junctures through historical legacies, war and through political problems. Following critical junctures in 1975, 1981, 1990, 1996 and 2006, Bangladesh has been witnessed path dependencies which lasted longer period than the critical junctures occurred (Rockman, 2000; Rahman, 2007b). The country faced critical junctures in 1975, 1981, 1990, 1996 and in 2006 and during all periods political changes occurred and following path dependencies lasted longer than the period critical junctures. Bangladesh witnessed number of assassinations of top leaders through the result of path dependencies or result of path dependencies (Riaz, 2004; Sarmila, 2010).
Bangladeshi institutions were framed in the context of power relations as it has relevance with ‘the rules of the game’ (Stern, 2001). In Bangladesh formal institutionalism has taken place. Its parliamentary structure allows variations across the country. Personality cult remains in the country too. Unlike Africa (Erdmann et al 2011), Bangladesh lacks tribe system. Historical Institutionalism (HI) has been used in analysing the governance through democracy and dictatorship in various countries (Steinmo, 1992).
In the globalisation of politics, Bangladeshi political problems are now an international issue. Development partners and international agencies are concerned for Bangladesh’s democratic development, good governance and corruption issue (Sarkar, 2008). World Bank recently stopped financing to Bangladesh projects due to alleged corruption of government (Daily Star, 2012a). Historical legacies brought Bangladesh to the present situation with many developments (Momen, 2008).
Part 4
1.4 Obstacles to democratic consolidation
The fourth part engages in introduction to factors in Bangladesh that hinder democratic development (i.e. path dependencies, or maybe results of path dependencies). This section identifies a number of obstacles of Bangladesh’s democracy. They are authoritarian governance, crisis of identity, enmity, violence, corruption, partisan bureaucracy and judiciary, ineffective parliament, caretaker government (CTG), external factors and military interventions.
1.4.1 Authoritarian governance
Bangladesh could not come out of some common problems and issues of different periods. These are mistrust, suspicion, discord, enmity and identity crisis (Murshid, 2008). Under the character of unitary constitution government is run by ruling party where the Prime Minister controls everything. Parliament and Cabinet do not function jointly according to the constitution. Nation has been facing the consequences of violence, vengeance and intransigence, which gradually became major characteristics of Bangladesh politics (Putnam, 1993).
The ruling party undertakes repressive measures to opponents in the form of legal and police repression. Debate, discussion, compromise, understanding and accommodation between ruling and opposition parties are absent In Bangladesh (Przeworski, 1999). A sense of vengeance and vendetta has been in the politics in the country. Moreover, a relationship of hatred in cyclic order between the political parties is manifested in Bangladesh politics (Chowdhury, 2011). This negative issue inevitably leads to standstill as far as debate and discussion are concerned over policy issues, which further widen the rift of the society (Chowdhury, 2010).
1.4.2 Crisis of identity
Nation is divided on nationality issue. Awami League believes in Bengalee nationalism, language based nationalism while BNP, JP and other parties believe in Bangladeshi nationalism, territorial nationalism. Basically, this created an identity crisis. Basically, Bangladesh constitution was hired from its Indian origin (Devin, 2008). After independence no innovative thing was done as far as constitution is concerned other than tinkering (Daily Star, 2007).
Regarding religion’s role in politics, Awami League’s official position is secularism. But for the voter sake this political organisation compromised with ‘Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim’ (To start with all activities in the name of creator and lord Allah) in the preamble of the constitution, which was inducted by Zia and state religion incorporated by Ershad (Haque, 1981). In 2011, AL amended the constitution deleting one of the principles namely ‘absolute faith and trust in almighty Allah’ and it was replaced by secularism. Thus, constitution became now a self-contradictory document (Daily Star, 2012b).
1.4.3 Enmity
The thoughts of Bangladesh’s top leadership have been dominated by a range of arrogance. An element of intolerance makes the mindset of leadership (IDEA, 2006). This way rivalry spreads in various political levels. One of the reasons of this rivalry is emergence enmity between political parties. The second reason stands opposition parties street politics. These discourses are related with historical perspective (Islam, 2005a).
Apart from historical legacy behind the rise of violence, two other factors contributed in this development (Islam, 2004b). They are emergence of enemy discourse between major parties and opposition party’s demonstration in the street. Violence became one of the characteristics of the country’s polity.
Enmity began with proclamation of independence in 1971. BNP has been observing that Major Zia declared independence when Sheikh Mujib was in Pakistani jail while AL does not want to give credit Zia (ICISS, 2001). It made permanent division in political arena. ‘A Parliamentary Government requires a certain level of respect, consideration, and cooperation between the government and the opposition, and this includes consultation between the prime minister and the leader of opposition’ (Jahan, 2000).
1.4.4 Violence
The hatred of political parties instigates violence in politics. Opposition parties as well as Human Rights organisations often complain that the government is using state apparatus to repress opponents. Gradually, this repression became ‘legitimate’ cause for violence. Disappearances, abduction and killings added new phenomenon in Bangladesh politics. Countrywide similar kind of incidents happened to 127 persons (Jahan, 2004). Using state machinery this sort of occurrence continues despite constant criticisms of the human rights organisations, donors and international organisations. Extortion and murder are also manifestation of violence. The former British High Commissioner to Bangladesh Stephan Evans stated, the politics of confrontation is the biggest threat to Bangladesh (Daily Star, 2011).
Hartal (General strike) is one of the major factors in Bangladesh politics since British period in India (1757-1947) (Jahan, 2003). This turned into violent shape in recent years. It causes confrontation between the parties. During various regime hartal has been a successful tool in ousting government. Political violence has another means of repression by state (Kochanek, 1998).
President Jimmy Carter of USA was assured by Bangladeshi political parties in 2001 that elections result will be accepted whatever the result would be and there will be no hartal. But later the thing went to the other direction (Mahoney, 2001).
1.4.5 Corruption
Corruption is another major problem for Bangladesh and an impediment towards development. Bureaucracy and judiciary are also affected by this (Motohi, 2002). Reason of absence of rule of law in Bangladesh is massive corruption. Bangladesh was ranked as the most corrupt country from 2001 to 2005 by Transparency International (TI) (Mohammad, 2008), which still continues although the situation has been improved. Successive governments used Anti-Corruption Commissions or Bureaus for partisan interest. World Bank stopped a major project of Padma Bridge in Bangladesh recently for alleged corruption of government (Daily Star, 2012b). Recently a section of politicians come from business class. Since the time of abolishment of Zamindari system in 1951, new elites from the business class started influence and later controlled the politics. At present, many of the elite politicians come from business sector (Momen, 2008).
1.4.6 Politicisation of administration
Unlike developed countries, bureaucracy and judiciary are handled by the government of the day. Due to this the government becomes weaker and non-participatory. Bureaucracy’s neutrality and faceless position has been questioned. Politics divided Bangladesh bureaucracy. Promotion is based on political loyalty. Opponent officers are made OSD (Officer on Special Duty) for political reason (Murshid, 2008). Quality of bureaucracy and accountability has been affected by these malpractices.
A section of civil servants joined the ‘Public Platform’ (Janatar Mancha) on the street under the banner of political party AL in 1996 in order to topple BNP government on the eve of an abortive military coup (Ittefaq 1996).
1.4.7 Politically biased judiciary
Recently separation of judiciary has been done in Bangladesh. However, ruling party has monopolistic control over government machinery (Rockman, 2000). Its excess influence over judiciary is another obstacle of good governance (Moniruzzaman, 2009).
Two verdicts of Supreme Court are the manifestations of political biasness of judiciary. They are the verdict on the political issue of declaration of independence and about fundamentals of constitution with CTG system issue. “This partisan approach to law enforcement extends from top to the bottom of the political system and applies to the behaviour of both the parties when in office” (Rahman, 2007b).
1.4.8 Ineffective parliament
Both AL and BNP compromised for parliamentary system in 1991 (Rahman, 2007b). Contrarily, since then the boycott culture became a threat to parliamentary democracy. In the parliamentary sessions ruling party does not allow the opposition to criticise them or participate in any issue which embarrass them. On the other side, opposition parties used to attend parliament session before their membership expires in 90th consecutive day to retain their seats. This practice continues since in 1991 (Rashiduzzaman, 2001a). Centring an issue of rigging in a bye-election of a parliamentary seat the mainstream opposition parties resigned from the parliament in 1994 and since then streets have become the centre-point of politics instead of parliament in Bangladesh (Hasanuzzaman, 1998, Ahmed, 2003). Speaker is appointed from the ruling party (Bangladesh Constitution) and he does not act neutrally (Riaz, 2004).
1.4.9 Caretaker Government (CTG)
Bangladesh has been with the circles of CTG issue since 1991. There were demands from the political parties to improve this innovative system, whereas it was abolished in 2011 through the 15th amendment of the constitution (Sobhan, 2004). The ruling party’s this decision created a critical juncture after three and half years rule of present government, when major political parties have been in the street movement following the political development. Future course of country’s democracy and governance is again in uncertainty. In these circumstances, Bangladesh’s democracy is termed as ‘nothing but illiberal democracy’ (Zakaria, 1997b). Although there is a provision to appoint ombudsman to oversee accountability of the government but it is yet to be established. Besides, there is no other institutional structure or system of this kind, which can solve the political crisis as a guardian (Haq, 2010).
1.4.10 External factors
Foreign intervention in domestic politics is an old phenomenon. Colonial legacy of various countries are manifestation of this intervention. In this globalisation era, external factors are also important for developing countries democracy. British colonial experience helped in reviving democracy in its some former colonies (Fakhrul, 2002). Donors especially World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and developed countries such as USA, UK and Japan give conditions to follow certain standards in Human Rights and good governance in providing aid and assistance to the developing countries (Grugel, 2002).
The world witnesses latest Egypt, Libya and Syria issue. Sometimes this intervention helps democracy and sometimes to the foreign countries as well as military or authoritarian government. USA, UK, UN, WB are watching Bangladesh situation and ask political parties to restrain from discord and violence (Daily Star, 2011; Chowdhury, 2011).
Sometimes, the role of external powers affects the internal configuration of politics in Bangladesh or other countries. Relations with external powers affect the policies of the political parties such as AL, BNP, JP and JI. Sometimes, these relations influence the outcomes of elections (Devin, 2008).
Commonwealth Secretary General Chief Emeka Anyaoku’s special envoy Sir Ninian Stephen mediated Bangladesh political stalemate in 1995 (Chowdhury, 2010; Telegraph 1995). US President Jimmy Carter mediated with the Bangladeshi political parties on the eve of 2001 parliamentary election. During the volatile situation of 2006 western diplomats were very busy with Bangladeshi political leaders and government actors to overcome the deadlock occurred (Chowdhury, 2011; Daily Star, 2012b). UN Secretary General Kofi A Annan’s special emissary Craig Gennes and US Assistant Secretary General Richard A Boucher and Under Secretary of State in the US State Department used their good offices as well to solve the political crisis as foreign actors (Datta, 2005). The role of British High Commissioner Anwar Chowdhury, Canadian High Commissioner Barbara Richardson and UN Resident Representative Renata Lok Dessalian was ‘controversial’, which was well publicised in home and abroad.
1.4.11 Military intervention
In Bangladesh, relationships with the army in power sometimes influence the voting patterns. Economic downturn and lack of good governance make a government unpopular. In these circumstances it becomes difficult for an incumbent government to win an election (e.g. increasing price hike of essential commodities, deteriorating conditions of roads, infrastructures, acute crisis of electricity etc). As a result, as the incumbent government tries to stay in power they apply ‘coercive methods’ (money, muscle, government forces etc), which aggravates the conflict with the opposition (Haq, 2010).
Bangladeshi military has been engaged in United Nations (UN) Peace Keeping Force since late 80’s that helped continuation of democracy in the country (Hagerty, 2007). Despite these achievements Bangladesh could not consolidate democratic institutions. Although military is not in power but autocratic system remains in civil leadership. Ruling party continues using state power for political supporters and opposition is repressed by government for political reasons.
Army has been playing a vital role in Bangladeshi governance since inception. The country’s birth depends on a legacy of war, where army’s role was pioneer. They played role in changing the governments during various authoritarian regimes as well. General H M Ershad, who took over power through a coup in 1982 proposed army’s share in statecraft in a constitutional way. Like Ershad, General Moeen U Ahmed also wanted to form National Security Council (NSC) with army’s involvement in administration (ICISS, 2001). Bangladesh army is a Pakistani legacy. It followed its predecessor’s path in overthrowing elected governments. Militarisation, deputation and civilisation have been continuing in various regimes (Jahan 2008). Fourth amendment of the constitution buried constitutional democracy and pluralism. As a result, military became directly involved in politics through that amendment by joining one party BKSAL rule (Daily Star, 2012b, Jahan 2008). Presidential system also began by that system. Military did not continue its support for Ershad’s regime after about 9 years of governance. Rather then it helped democratic transition in 1990. A group of military led by its chief General Nasim staged a coup in 1996, which was failed. In 2007 another coup led by Army Chief General Moeen U Ahmed overthrown a constitutional Caretaker Government (CTG) and ruled the country for two years. However, army chief did not succeed to become the President. Thus the aim of the coup failed (Islam, 2005a). The reason of failure of that coup was development partners and international world including USA, UN, Commonwealth and EU did not support martial law and army chief’s intention to be the head of the state (Chowdhury 2007, Manabzamin 2007, Amar Desh 2008, Thikana 2008).
Army sought magistracy power several times as it was called in aid to civil power (Murshid, 2008) to maintain law and order, check terrorism, control flood, cyclone and tidal bore, and clean heart operation and even to manage worst traffic problem in the capital city. It makes army ambitious in running the statecraft. After collapses of Soviet Union and high risk of losing the role in UN Peace Keeping Force it is not possible like previously to overthrow the elected government.
A military intervention occurred in Bangladesh on 11 January 2007. After failing to declare Martial Law Army Chief Lt. General Moeen U Ahmed forced country’s president to declare a State of Emergency (Rahaman, 2010). Army ruled the country for two years. Although a section of military wanted to reform Bangladesh politics and governance and to stop corruption, they failed when Army Chief tried to materialise his dream to be the President and a section of Army involved themselves in corruption. Earlier military intervention happened in liberation war in 1971, August and November in 1975, March 1982, December 1990 and May 1996 (Rockman, 2000; Rahman, 2007a). Military is called ‘third force’ in Bangladesh as it intervenes in politics. Sometimes, some small parties take effort to form a ‘third force’ (in political platform). Democratic behaviour of political parties can bring army under a system, which developed countries have been practicing for over the years (Murshid, 2008).
1.5 Conclusion
This chapter examined the reasons behind Bangladesh’s confrontational politics. It has been seen that the political situation in Bangladesh does not equal any of the academic definitions of democracy at the moment. The unresolved issue of Caretaker Government (CTG) is manifestation of this mistrust, suspicion, discord and enmity have been characterised with political behaviour in the country. In some ways CTG was similar to this definition, because all parties agreed with the CTG system safeguarding elections as 'the only game in town' (Linz and Stephan 1997, Przerworski 1999). As the system later failed, this suggests that Huntington's definition of consolidated democracy is 'wrong' or 'weak'.
It has been seen that country became the victim of political division since 1991 and it continues until 2011. Recently the study of violence and killing has emerged as one of the major areas of research in political science as well as in the political sociology (Murshid, 2008). Entire periods are linked with the beginning and end of CTG system. With the end of this system, the political situation has further deteriorated. It is now essential to look at the context through an analytical framework.
It argues that Bangladesh has been facing problems of enmity between rival political parties, ineffective parliament and politics of street cause the violence, confrontation and discord. It has been found that the enmity is linked with ideological, cultural, historical and political dimensions. These issues instigate a political culture of intolerance, mistrust, and suspicion, which turn into antagonism. It creates arrogance and revenge as well. This leads to a situation of stalemate, deadlock and relations of non-cooperation among the parties. This is a cycle Bangladesh witnesses repeatedly. The issue of the ruling party’s monopolistic attitude of governance, sense of deprivation of opposition parties inevitably brings debate and discussion on policy issues to a standstill. Finding no other alternatives, the opposition demonstrates their power on the street in order to compel the government to vow down to their pressure. Consequently, government tries to suppress and oppress the movement. As a result, these are reason of obvious confrontational consequence. This way history repeats itself in Bangladesh. By the time this became one of the characteristics of Bangladeshi politics. These problems are obstacles of institutionalisation of democracy, good governance, and economic development. On the other hand it causes human life and damage to properties.
Some scholars very recently started doing research activities to find out required reform for Bangladesh governance. It will help the country to pursue adequate reform programmes. Country like Bangladesh regularly has to meet many requirements to maintain its global relationship update and to cope with world standard. For example, recently Bangladesh had to introduce Machine Readable Passport (MRP) and Machine Readable Visa (MRV) system and signed treaty to join e-passport after 2014 in line with international requirement. Bangladesh had to restructure old model Anti-Corruption Bureau, which was replaced by Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) under World Bank and other donors pressure in 1995. However, ACC could not start proper functioning due to wrong choice of its operator by the successive governments.
Bangladesh needs structural changes in the governance and parliament. Reform is essential outside parliament as well. Pierson (2004) argues, formal institutional change can induce informal changes in behaviour. For structural change Bangladesh needs both internal and external support. Civil society, media and international development partners can come forward to institutionalise democracy and establish good governance. As aid and assistance have links (Khan, 2011) with democracy and good governance, international donors can find a way to facilitate development of Bangladeshi system of governance. With this assistance the country can meet the criteria to join developed world from developing stage.
Bangladeshi democracy has been passing a critical juncture. However, recession in developed world could not affect Bangladesh. Country’s economy is in better position as well as development is going on in social sectors, which is admirable too. Bangladesh needs institutionalisation of democracy and ensures good governance to overcome confrontational politics and to achieve faster economic development.
M Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury is a London-based Researcher as well as Independent Analyst in Politics and International Relations. A Career Journalist Mukhles Chowdhury is a Former Minister and Adviser to the President of Bangladesh. Besides, Former President of Overseas Correspondents’ Association Bangladesh (OCAB) Mukhles Chowdhury has been working as the Chief Editor of the Bangladesh Worldwide and the Weekly Prekshit as well. Email: [email protected]
Comments are moderated