Even 53 months not enough to fix institutions?

As we are being told and are saying as well for the past few years, democratic, social and state institutions have been ruined. Representatives of the civil society, speaking at a recent seminar, expressed such concern, in chorus this time around.

They said all institutions of the country have been made dysfunctional in such a manner and to such an extent that it might not be possible to fix those even in 53 years in case there is a changeover some day.

 This frustrating comment is the reflection of reality, which has its opposite side, however. If it takes more than 53 months to rectify the ineffective or destroyed institutions, its purpose might be irrelevant by the time.

And if the task is to be completed in 53 years, how many of the current generations will be there to carry out their duties?

By then, a group of people may ask if they have the onus to rebuild the institutions. Also in the whirlwind of change, the then leadership may tend to say, ‘What’s the point of bearing the burden of so many institutions?’

Effectiveness of the institutions is a matter which generally goes beyond the comprehension of the commoners. Still, in their understanding, how a school or college provides education gives them an idea of quality of the institutions.

That regulatory and service institutions and other executive branch offices, judiciary and parliament are the most important state institutions, is more understandable to relatively conscious segment of the population. If they want, they can also deceive the commoners.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the state system is responsible for the corruption, money laundering, extrajudicial killing and violation of voting rights, the people can hardly connect themselves to such statement; neither could they blame anyone directly for the deterioration. Unless whatever should be stated publicly is spoken in clearest terms, the man running the show sitting behind the state machinery can easily get immunity from his/her liabilities.

Even then in a country of kobigan (poetic songs, the lyrics of which are created instantly to raise questions and give answers to them), people love to listen to intellectual discourses, no matter if they capture them always or not. Syndicate, for example, is a foreign word but people can grab it and understand what it does when it comes to business, based on their experience of visiting the kitchen market. 

When there is a manipulation in the share market, we see immediate reaction to it for small investors are the losers in such case. But swelling of classified loans does not make the depositors angry so quickly because they don’t know its long-term impact in advance.

The people can notice the far-reaching effect of taking loans at higher interest rates for implementing expensive development projects only when they have to pay higher taxes, tariffs for utilities and toll in every step of living. On the other hand, when someone is deprived of a job unjustly or fails to secure proper medicare service at a hospital, that disservice apparently remains an isolated matter of the aggrieved person/s.

 Criticism of such matters is also made in an isolated manner. Some are interested in making 'vegetarian' analysis of the situation to hide the actual issue/s or their own liability in one way or the other; some critics refrain from being ‘aggressive’ with the hope of living in a safe and sound environment.

There have been discussions on banking sector, share market, commodity market etc., as is done for widening disparity in society – only without offering much remedy from the diseases that plagued each sector. We barely see any discussion offering clarity to the people about who or which institutions are responsible for causing public suffering or violating their fundamental rights.

Hesitation is common in most of the important persons in pointing finger at anyone for ruining political and state institutions. We had listened to so much tall talk from them about building institutions in the 1990s that many people were persuaded to believe the buildings, organogram and budgetary allocations would solve all problems of public life. We were about to forget that individual or group of people responsible for running the institutions has/have the most important role to play in this regard.

Therefore, in the discussions of running and abusing state institutions, the masses may not be able to measure the importance of the chair and the areas of problem unless some names come to the surface. The issue of what kind of impact the judgement on abolition of the caretaker government system, written by former chief justice Khairul Haque had had on the country’s electoral system and practices, must come to the fore time and again.

It is also important to have objective assessment of what altitude former chief election commissioners Kazi Rakibuddin Ahmed, KM Nurul Huda and Kazi Habibul Awal had taken the Election Commission to, by presiding over the questionable elections held in 2014, 2018 and 2024. The generations who have not yet seen effective parliament need to try to find out where self-satisfaction of the current Members of Parliament lies.

The names of those who have the ‘credit’ of massive politicisation of the administration, corrupting the financial sector or further downgrading the educational institutions are quietly pronounced among those for whom various institutions have gone to the dogs.

It is, however, encouraging to note that a section of the intellectuals have at least attempted to make others understand the gravity of the situation by observing that it might not be possible to rectify the institutions in 53 years. This civil society group is often made the target of criticism (even by some political elements) after the political leadership, for holding discussions and debates on issues of national importance.

Accordingly, many don’t regret when political parties as institutions turn ineffective. The ruling party has been lost in the madness of power politics while the chances of free and fair elections for the opposition parties have been made zero. Moreover, any party which is brought under the scheme of splitting, does not even know the reasons of internal strife or if there is any. What its leadership knows is that some others are playing the game which is not their job.

What a precedent of ruining the institutions and non-application of the rules of the game proper.

Some people share their grievances with others during adda (chit-chat) over a cup of tea, before and after any serious discussions or talk shows and if s/he has scope to open up in front of reliable ones. They only regret why they cannot do their own business whatsoever or there is no lawfully appreciated competitive atmosphere around them. They think they don’t cause any damage to the interests of those who matter. Why then won’t they get what they deserve? These intelligent gentlemen can’t just realise that nothing is possible denying the greater political and legal realities and culture where they are living in.

 This reality has been  created not in a single day. We cannot go back to the past but question arises obviously. Had the right arguments been placed at a right time and all those concerned taken stand in favour of the righteous cause, the course of history could have different! It is high time to ask why that didn’t happen.

If anyone/group wants change, the people must be informed about it clearly. At least its aspiration needs to be spelt out. If a representative system based on this agenda is in place, there shall be a popular mandate of five years for it.

Is a timeframe of 53 months not enough to fix the national institutions with the force of collective will of the people?

 * Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist.