Democracy- The myth and the reality
Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelley
Independent, 29 November 2012
Present times claim to manifest an “Age of democracy”. Since the beginning of the nineteen-nineties a varitable wave of democratization has been sweeping the world. This has been accompanied by a surge of open market-economy. The two systems received powerful fillips from the collapse of socialist polities and economies in the erstwhile socialist countries such as now-defunct Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies. Socialism in these lands crumbled on account of internal factors. They are still in the process of challenging transition from socialist single party states and command economies to multiparty democracies and capitalist, market friendly economic systems. Even those countries with socialist political system such as China and Vietnam are liberalizing their economies with positive results in terms of progress and prosperity. In these nations political liberalization, though at a slower pace is also gradually becoming visible. Similar changes, particularly of political system, took place outside the former or existing socialist countries. From the closing decade of the twentieth century up-to-date a large number of Asian, African and Arab countries in North Africa and Middle-East made dramatic transition from rigidly dictatorial to avowedly democratic systems. Internal and external factors blended in varied mix to bring forth this apparently welcome change.
In several countries of South Asia such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal well entrenched dictatorships gave way to ostensively democratic governments in the wake of people’s upsurge during the 1980s, 1990s and in early twenty first century. The surrounding international setting, especially the altitudes and mind sets of the soul super power, USA and its western allies strongly disfavoured and discouraged military takeover and dictatorial rule in developing countries.
They shouldered the responsibility of virtually a new “white man’s burden”: The task of ensuring democracy and human rights in politically and economically underdeveloped lands. Consequently, they come out with economic, political diplomatic and where necessary, military means, overt or covert. In 2011 the military means was effectively used to dethrone Libyan autocrat Moammar Gaddafi. Else where in Arab North Africa and Middle-East non-military weapons were used to the full to help the democratic revolution named ‘the Arab spring’ to achieve success. The story in Afghanistan and Iraq is deferent. In these lands fundamentalist and Baath socialist regimes were forcibly overthrown by direct military intervention to demolish and destroy “Islamic fundamentalist” elements such as Al-Quida fighters and Talibans in Afghanistan (since 2001) and dictatorship of Saddam Hossain in Iraq (in 2003) both attacks embodied US and Western response to the unprecedented terrorist attack on USA on 11 September 2001, 9/11.
The Ostensible democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq are shaky and uncertain and propped up largely by Western military presence. Incertitude also dominates the fledgling democracies created in the wake of the Arab spring. The elections there have produced victories for those described as moderate. Islamists. Whether the US in particular and West in general is or can continue to be comfortable at this turn of events and subsequent developments is a matter for research and analysis.
Democratic arrangements fabricated in other countries of Asia following fall of dictators are not also reflecting in full, the sprit and substance of democracy. Elective personal rule has taken the place of dictatorship in many of these lands. A new autocracy in the garb of democracy haunts these nations. Undemocratic political parties commended by charismatic leaders, often with dynastic mantles, tent to limit democracy. Further democratic deficit result from monopolizing the government structures by the elected party which goes on controlling state institutions and society by using patron-client networks and coercive strength of the state. Administration is sought to be politicized and brought under the sway of the ruling party especially its top leaders. Legislative becomes ineffective, local government impotent as the might of personal leadership grows.
Democratic deficits negate peoples’ participation in the affairs of the state. When this deficits increase disproportionately, states start failing.
Most failing and failed states are featured by seemingly irreconcilable division. In multi ethnic, multi-religious and multi-linguistic societies the lines of separation are drawn along ethnic, religious and linguistic contours. In such societies political leaders are subject to exacting pressures generated by multi-dimensional differences.
Other states, even with largely homogeneous population, have not been fortunate. While the heterogeneous states face greater challenges homogeneous ones are not always immune to the dangers of divisive conflicts. Ideological difference, even though minimal, intensified by myopic, stubborn and dogmatic leaders may and do lead to disproportionate intensification of rivalry and animosity. This in its turn may result in sharp division, even polarization of the society. Antipathy may cause violent conflict leading to grave instability and dangerous disorder. All this spells out a prescription for a failing and failed state. ‘Uncertain’ or ‘illiberal’ democracies, deviate from the universal democratic norms. In these distorted systems political parties and their leaders do not help build and preserve national consensus on basic issues. Differing viewpoints do not find mutual accommodation. Intolerance vitiates the political and social environment. Dissention and disunity become the order of the day. In consequence, political parties advocating differing ideologies and programs attempt to draw peoples support not by democratic persuasion but by force, overt or covert. Their political strategies are, therefore, often a mix of craft and coercion.
In this situation power becomes a vital instrument to be used not necessarily to achieve people’s freedom and welfare but to attain dominance of the winning side. Consequently elections, even when apparently free and fair, become transformed into a ‘zero sum game’ where the winner takes all. Needless to say elections in these circumstances weaken, rather than strengthen democracy. Further, these also pave the way to the establishment of elective autocracies.
Once in power the political parties concerned and their leaders tend to reduce the strength and role of the defeated opposition. The inclination to ride rough shod over the opposition impedes the operation of the party system, a vital component of pluralist democracy. As a result democracy receives a body-blow and is considerably dwarfed. Repetition of this harmful process has been witnessed in countries such as Bangladesh, Sir Lanka, Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe over the recent decades. In such avowedly democratic countries competition for capturing state power is transformed into fiercely combative contest. In such situations the reduction of the opposition is sought to be achieved by a deliberate process of fostering patron-client relationship between the leader and the party in power and various key segments of the society.
Democratic governance involves political mobilization on the basis of class and economic interests, fair political contestation for legitimacy of control over state institutions. It derives its origin mainly from Weberian concept of bureaucratic rationality in which formal institutions and well-defined procedures work. Close and symbiotic relations are visualized between the political process of democracy and economic process of capitalism. Political process in a democratic or democratizing country has great stake in the health of the capitalist economy. What about the developing societies like Bangladesh where capitalism is yet to become mature and democratic governance still unrealized? Weberian discourse recognizes the concept of patrimonialism as a pre-capitalist mode of political and economic organizations, where authority and legitimacy flow from traditional bondages, kinship, clans etc. But what we observe in the developing parts of the world is prevalence of patrons and followers brought together not necessarily by traditional bonds but inevitably by exchange relationship in which the dependents, clients or followers exchange their loyalty, support, and if necessary, muscle power in lieu of patronage and booties. In essence, consent and legitimacy do not flow from primordial values, as in patrimonialism but from money, opportunities and protection. Some analysts call it neo-patrimonialism because there may be façade of deference and consent. The essence of patron-client relationship is personalized control over resources, opportunities and decisions, factional mobilization and contestation. Politics in states such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and several African countries is characterized by patron-client networks which have been enhanced by the expanse and strength of informal governance.
The contenders, both winners and losers, in national elections, do not seem to have confidence in normal politics and in the effectiveness of their respective party in maintaining or acquiring power. In consequence, the competition for power becomes distorted and polluted.
The leaders of the ruling party try to secure their positions and ensure victory in the subsequent elections by arrogating to themselves a monopoly of state resources. Important institutions of the state are brought under the overpowering control and domination of the ruling party. This enables it to distribute favours to its clients who as beneficiaries in key positions in bureaucracy, business and professions are expected to help the patron, i.e., the ruling party in maintaining and prolonging its rule.
The excessive spread and intensification of patron-client relationship between the rulers and loyal segments of the society create negative impacts on less developed polities. Patron-client relationship, in these cases, contributes to the weakening of the state instead of strengthening it. Important state institutions such as the civil bureaucracy, local government, legislature and judiciary are politicized as part of expanding network of patron-client relationship.
Failing and failed states also witness a deliberate process of dwarfing of local governments by nearsighted political parties and their leaders. In many post-colonial states, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, successive governments led by different political parties distort the inherited system of autonomous local government. The practice of exercising intensive and extensive control over local governments through bureaucracy and the Members of Parliaments result in the undesirable dwarfing of these representative bodies. Monopolization of local level development funds by the ruling party results in uneven and often inequitable development in the concerned areas. Further, continuous and stable development is also endangered by disruption of the system when change of government brings another party to power.
In fragile states the process of ‘capture’ spreads beyond state institutions. Political forces, locked in combat for power, engage themselves in dividing the society along the ‘we’ and ‘they’ line. Professionals, including physicians, engineers, teachers, journalists, businessmen are politicized and become clients of different major political parties.
Combative competition for increasing the financial might of the political parties causes a dangerous distortion in free-market economy. Encouragement and promotion of crony capitalism and enterprise creates an unfriendly environment for market friendly economy and opens wide the avenues of clientalist corruption. This degenerative process leads to wanton plunder and wastage of national resources and eats into the vitals of the economy. Consequently, the downslide of the state as an institution is further speeded up. Resources acquired by corrupt monopolization and manipulation of the economy are often used to maintain and promote ‘muscle power’ manifest in illegally armed party cadres. Such unhealthy practice disrupts the rule of law and democratic processes further endangering the state.
In many cases failing and failed states are the products of imposition of personal rule in fledgling democracies. The cult of personality is usually nurtured and strengthened in developing democracies featured by charismatic leadership with dynastic credentials. In such situations personality becomes more dominant than the system. Both the government and the party are dominated by the unchallenged power of the top leader and democracy is dwarfed within the government and the party in power and without. Lack of democratic practices in dominant political parties poses dangerous challenges to the democratic state. In the World of our times failing democracies are the children of failing and failed leadership.
Leadership of this kind is usually the product of polluted politics and contributes to further distortion and deviation of democracy. Crude and unbridled power politics use political issues to divide the nation. Politicization of state institutions by the party in power threatens to lead to state-capture. The opposition tries to halt this process by taking to the streets. Political instability further intensifies social unrest and economic owes. Violent tents to rise and defy control. Whatever is left of democracy is threatened with destruction. The reality of democracy slides into myth. In this situation the only guaranty of restoring and maintaining democracy lies in meaningful dialogue between the major political forces to reach a consensus that democracy will continue by the method of fair counting of heads and not by breaking them. Failure to do this will not only rock the boat of democracy but many also lead to its sinking.
The writer is a former minister and chairman CDRB