There's a Kabir Sumon song, 'Helicopter'. It's about how the leaders take their helicopters to go and met the people. It is a satire, a sarcastic diatribe on the politicians and their machinations. A recent political debate reminded me strongly of the last part of the song.
The joy and glee over Sheikh Hasina's fall and her fleeing had not ended, but every day that celebration and euphoria loses a bit of its edge. Conflicts arise, even hints of clashes. Having long been distanced from democratic practice under an autocratic system, we have almost forgotten how to resolve differences through discussion and debate, how to meet each other halfway and coexist in peace. The question of reforms and elections has created conflict among our political parties, creating risk of confrontation too.
I do not know about the marginal populace, but "reforms" is now a key word on the lips on the educated urban population. For quite some time now, even reforms have become a political issue, like the banning of Awami League. In my last column I wrote any political party can made a political issue out of any matter, and this is not negative. In fact, it would be perfect for our future welfare if reforms could become a long-term political issue.
The root of the controversy over reforms is the objective behind toppling Sheikh Hasina. A large section of the political parties and people felt that toppling Sheikh Hasina was the main objective, to be followed by elections and gradually emerging as a democratic state. Another section feels that the objective of the mass uprising was not simply to topple Sheikh Hasina, but to undertake important constitutional and legal reforms to prevent a resurgence of fascism. Needless to say, in keeping with the norms of Bangladesh's politics, both sides like to claim that what they want is what the "people want."
Even in countries with well-established constitutions, laws, democratic structures and institutions, there is a retardation of democracy and this trend is on the rise.
Till now, all important parties in the political field acknowledge the need for reforms. The debate over reforms basically emerged over how far the reforms should be carried out and when these are to be implemented. BNP wants minimum reforms to be carried out now and then for the election to be held. The elected government will then continue with implementation of the reforms. They feel that the party elected by the people has the mandate to carry out reforms.
Meanwhile, NCP has adopted a stern stance that the large number of reforms on the table must be implemented before the next election. Not only that, but in order come up with a new constitution they want to follow the 1970 Pakistan model and hold constituent assembly elections and general elections together. And Jamaat-e-Islami is supporting NCP's demands to this end, with a few exceptions. Their justification for wanting reforms before the election is that if BNP comes to power, they will not carry out the reforms. Many are pointing back to the experience of the three-alliance declaration not being carried out after the fall of Ershad.
The recommendations put forward by the reform commissions in their reports can be, broadly speaking, divided into two. If some of the reforms of the various reform commissions (all of the recommendations of the constitutional reform commission) are to be carried out, the constitution will need amendment.
That will not be possible for this government to carry out. But there are many reforms that can be carried out by means of amending the laws and regulations and also through administrative restructuring. This government can easily do that. But such forcefully imposed reforms do not remain effective, as seen in the case of the ordinances imposed during the 1/11 rule.
When Awami League came to government next, they only made one-third of these ordinances into laws (that too with many with amendments). Perhaps it is with this in mind that the chief advisor repeatedly reiterates that he will not undertake any reforms without consensus of all the major stakeholders.
Many among us nowadays feel that free, fair and inclusive elections are not enough for us to establish the aspired democratic state. That is why before the next election, we must carry out reforms of the constitution, the laws and everything to ensure a foolproof security system to safeguard democracy.
We see in the birthplace of democracy, Europe and the US, extremist rightwing and fascist parties or individuals ascending to power or gradually gaining strength, and that since 2006 there has been a steady decline in the number of functional democratic countries around the world. Was this because there were problems in their constitutions and laws? If so, then those countries should be gradually discussing constitutional and legal reforms, but are they doing so? Or are they discussing how to deal with these circumstances politically? A little searching will give anyone the answer.
The solution to the existing situation of conflict over reforms can be this: Those who feel that the people had taken to the streets to topple Sheikh Hasina and bring about reforms to prevent a return of fascism, can make reforms the main agenda of their election manifesto. They can highlight which reforms will benefit the people. They can politically confront those who harm the people without carrying out reforms. If they thus win the mandate of the people and form the government, they can then carry out their aspired reforms.
If, as they claim, the people want reforms, then they should win the election. Even if they cannot win, as the opposition they can motivate the people about reforms if BNP comes to power with a lesser inclination for reforms. If they can generate public demand for reforms, then BNP will have to acquiesce to the reforms that they were previously unwilling to do. If BNP does not comply, then the apprehension of defeat in the subsequent election will increase. That is how a democratic system works.
Some feel that it is essential to carry out reforms on all the issues just in case BNP comes to power and wants to remain at the helm through election engineering like Sheikh Hasina. If a government decides that it will not hold a proper election, then no laws or amendments can hold it back. There are such examples all over the world, and in this country too in recent times.
Kabir Suman's song ends like this (in translation): "I have voted, you have voted, we have voted, they have voted, votes... the leaders just see people's faces as ballot papers." As a citizen of India, a country which has continued unwavering with democracy since birth, Sumon could see how the politicians trivialise people as mere ballot papers. That is natural. After the downfall of Sheikh Hasina, I kept thinking that for many years we were not even viewed a mere ballot papers. So I was thinking that this time let us at least be ballot papers. After every five years if the politicians can see people's faces as ballot papers, then the reforms required to take us towards a developed democracy will be implemented.
As I mentioned before, even in countries with well-established constitutions, laws, democratic structures and institutions, there is a retardation of democracy and this trend is on the rise. The struggle to save democracy looms large in front of the people of those countries once again. This is an eternal struggle. For the time being, the more the political parties reach consensus about reforms and put these into effect, the better. But no party or citizen should complacently imagine that just by writing a constitution and laws we can be assured of a foolproof, flawless, risk-free democratic system.
* Zahid Ur Rahman is a university teacher and a political analyst
* This column appeared in the print an online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir