It is good to acknowledge from the outset that six months is by no means sufficient to evaluate the performance of a government. However, in this piece, I will focus on whether there are any 'fault lines' or significant weaknesses in governance during these six months that could lead to major problems in the future. Additionally, I will try to analyze whether the government is giving importance to these issues or taking appropriate steps to address them.
Before delving into this analysis, let's resolve two questions. In what situation did the government come to power, and how strong is its legitimacy? The answer to the first question is that the government has assumed responsibility in a fragile situation. From a political perspective, we could say the government took charge at a time when the institutions essential for maintaining democracy are either extremely weak or have undergone processes that have significantly reduced their ability to function.
The second aspect is a huge opportunity for the government because it has come to power with a two-thirds majority. This is a substantial political asset for any government. With such significant public support and legitimacy, a government can make many difficult decisions that may seem unpopular in the short term but could yield positive outcomes for the people in the long run. Therefore, in evaluating the current government's performance, the most important aspect is whether the government is using its political capital appropriately. Based on this, three criteria for evaluation can be determined.
Firstly, when we talk about creating a liberal democratic framework, it doesn't solely depend on elections. Here, elections only ensure democratic transition. The biggest challenge during the period between two elections is to establish fragile institutions and create institutional balance. How successful the government has been in this regard is a point of consideration. Secondly, the method of the government's work: How is the government addressing the challenges it faces, and is there public participation in these matters? Thirdly, every government in any state has a crucial role in ensuring some fundamental rights for everyone, irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity, or gender. Whether this government is able to do so or not.
Very clearly, there are significant weaknesses in these three areas. If we come to the issue of institutional balance, we see a very peculiar picture. There is a sign in the government's actions that the government is establishing institutions to increase its own power. There seems to be no attention from the government to whether these institutions are becoming strong enough to curtail public rights.
This means the government is walking the path of creating a strong government on the one hand, and on the other, not creating any institution to keep that strong government in control. Instead, the government seems more focused on weakening existing institutions. The draft laws for the Disappearance Commission and the Human Rights Commission are major examples of this.
In both cases, we see that the government is not paying any attention to ensuring that the state cannot deprive citizens of their rights. The government is trying to say that it has good intentions, so it won't do this. But a state does not run on good intentions. A structure of balance needs to be created in the state so that even if the government wants, it cannot infringe on citizens' rights.
We see many indications of the government's reliance on the bureaucracy. This means on one hand the government is increasing the power of the bureaucracy, and on the other hand, a process to prevent the bureaucracy and government institutions from becoming overly powerful to infringe on people's rights is not being created. This is a terrible fault line. Because no government becomes authoritarian in one day. The signs gradually emerge. Institutions are gradually arranged in a way that makes the government authoritarian. The outcome is seen towards the end of the government's tenure, i. e. , in the fourth or fifth year.
In a democratic state, it is not acceptable for people to remain 'inactive citizens' only by voting. To consolidate democracy, people's participation in policy-making must be ensured. For this, there needs to be such a channel through which people can express their opinions. People's participation is essentially 'two-way communication'. Just as people will let the government know their demands, the government must also inform people about what it is doing, why, and how.
It appears that in the current economic crisis, including electricity and gas, the government is neither taking opinions from the public nor providing sufficient information about the issues. This is another major 'fault line'. Because if a democratically elected government cannot maintain effective communication with its people, the distance between the government and the people continues to grow. The more this distance increases, the more frustrated the people become. As a result, the fundamental difference between democracy and authoritarianism may gradually become blurred among the people. For the democratic future, this is an extremely serious crisis.
In a democratic state, everyone has the right to live regardless of religion, caste, ethnic group, identity, or gender, and to practice their own religion and culture. In this regard, we see the emergence of a kind of 'social authoritarianism'. One group is trying to impose its views on another group. And the government is also failing to take any reasonable actions in this case.
Here, the term 'Towhidi Janata' is being used as an 'umbrella term'. Analyzing it, we find it doesn't include only Islamist political parties. Recently, in the initiative to stop an Urs in Savar, the involvement of leaders from BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Oikya Jote, and Khilafat Majlis has been observed.
The concern is that 'Towhidi Janata' seems to be becoming a kind of consensus among different political parties. If someone from the ruling party is part of it or if party leaders and workers assist in such activities and the party or government takes no position on it, then the government's promise to protect everyone's rights comes into serious question.
In this case, not just the ruling party, but all political parties need to clarify their positions. Since people from different political parties are involved in 'Towhidi Janata', whether they agree with activities like stopping concerts, film screenings, or boat races must be clarified. If they do not agree, then what measures have they taken to prevent their leaders and workers from engaging in such activities must also be made clear to the public.
In conclusion, these three major 'fault lines' could drive our future democratic journey into a deep crisis. The unfortunate thing is that there seems to be a kind of hesitation or unwillingness on the part of the government to address these issues, which might not lead to good outcomes.
#Asif Mohammad Shahan is a professor at the Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.
*The opinions expressed here are the author's own.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam