Bangladesh began its journey as a democratic state with the introduction of the national constitution in 1972. However, following this constitutional introduction, the practice of democracy in Bangladesh was marred by several interruptions. Democracy has taken firmer root since 1991 when Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed became the Caretaker President of the country. Since then, three elections have taken place; the first in 1991, followed by a second in 1996, and then our latest elections in 2001. This period witnessed the rise and fall of three governments. The first government, that of Khaleda Zia, ruled from 1991 to 1996. Then the government of Sheikh Hasina was in power from 1996 to 2001, followed by the return of the government of Khaleda Zia to power in 2001, and this government remains in office at present. Of course, in between these governments, caretaker govts were formed and led by former Chief Justices of the country as per our constitution. The first khaleda Zia government was preceded by the caretaker government of Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed.

In this brief essay, I will delineate the basic features that have characterized our democracy since 1991. I will also discuss some key issues that urgently demand contemplation and resolution. The most important issue is that of holding fair elections. We find that the twin phenomena of money and muscle continue to wield a serious and embarrassing degree of influence over our elections. It is true that the elections of 1991, 1996 and 2001 were formally recognized to have been held properly. However, it is common knowledge that the use of money and muscle plagued these elections to varying extents and that sometimes the Election Commission was not even able to constrain, let alone eradicate such practices. For instance, the Election Commission has been unable to implement the restriction on expenditure. Thus the issue of fair elections is a core issue for national contemplation and reform in view of the widespread public perception mentioned above. I believe several steps can be taken to help rectify this situation. One is the strengthening of the Election Commission by granting it full independence, as embodied in the neighboring state of India. The neutrality and the independence of the Election Commission in India remains undisputed.

However, we in Bangladesh find that the relationship between the Election Commission and the government is sometimes quite strained. In several instances in the past, serious disagreements arose between the ruling party and the Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioners. Thus this issue needs to be handled with care in the future. Not only should the Election Commission be independent, but also, the selection of the members of the Election Commission, if possible, should be made through consensus among the major parties in the country. Electoral laws need to be changed in line with India as I stated above. As in India, asset declaration of the candidates must be made compulsory. Electoral irregularities, if there are any, should be investigated quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately, as things stand currently, any inquiry into complaints of election rigging entails so many steps that in most cases, no decision is taken during the entire five year term of an elected government. This naturally encourages continuation in attempts to influence elections through intimidation, coercion, and financial clout. What is needed is that the complaint be taken very seriously and decisions rendered within a very short period of time-no more than six months. Each stage in the process should be strictly defined by time limits and no more than one or two appeals should be allowed. If this can be done and if ten/twenty members of Parliament lose their seats, this will serve as a good lesson for all the other members and the frequency with which electoral irregularities occur is likely to decrease over time.

My next point concerns the caretaker government. Our democracy is in a way regulated by the caretaker govt. and the caretaker concept enshrined in the constitution. This resulted from a lack of faith in the incumbent govt. to hold a fair election. There is a general consensus that given our national context and past records, it is better to hold elections under a caretaker govt. than under a party govt. Thus this concept of caretaker government has been accepted by the people fully and should be sustained. Certain amendments can be made in due time, should there be a general consensus among the major political parties on the substance of the amendment. Otherwise the caretaker provisions should not be touched, since any such act is likely to create further problems and harm our relatively fragile, current state of democracy.

A feature of our democracy is press freedom. We can proudly say that we have more press freedom than virtually any other country. What we must be cautious about is that we do not abuse our press freedom and ensure that there is a genuine attempt at fair reporting, accuracy, and a professional impartiality in the news. While it is understood that an editor or a reporter cannot be absolutely neutral and naturally has values, beliefs, and certain prejudices of his/her own as a thinking and feeling human being, it is imperative that journalists, more than anybody else, must at least ideally and constantly strive to attain that elusive state of objectivity or "value-free" praxis in reporting, writing, and framing. Anything less harms democracy and constitutes a grave injustice. People have the right to know the truth, not cleverly crafted or tilted or sensationalized news.

Another regrettable feature of our democracy is the politicization of the civil services and various appointments at every level throughout the country including the academic arena. Whoever comes to power, by and large, tends to appoint individuals who are known to them or who support them. This is extremely inappropriate. While such an allegation cannot be proven as such, this is a widespread public perception and this is what I hear from ordinary people time and again. Not even appointments in the Public Service Commission (PSC)are free from nepotism. This leads to politicization of the administration , bureaucracy and various other appointment s of significance and in no way enables a truly democratic context.

Our democracy is also partly complicated and frustrated by repeated hartals called by the oppositon. This phenomenon is quite peculiar to Bangladesh and cannot be found to occur on such a scale in any other country. A few hartals were acceptable in the past, but in my view, this is no longer acceptable, for the costs far outweigh the benefits. While freedom of expression is a basic human right and a marker of pluralism, tolerance, and civility, the particular local "hartal" form of such expression has proven to be destructive to our economy and to hinder the building of civil society. It does not help enhance the political process in any way and is clearly not an effective means of bringing about a change of government. Additionally, the culture of hartal is frustrating the public and ruining the image of our country abroad. Our political parties must find a way to stop repeated calls for hartals. We clearly need a law to regulate and redefine the practice of hartals. Such a law should take shape through debates in the parliament , and if possible, with the consensus of the parties in the Parliament.

Boycotting of the Parliament is yet another problem of the same genre. Some boycotts continue for months, some for the whole session, and some for a few days. This devastates the prospect of democracy in the country. In my understanding, the parliament in our country is boycotted for rather trivial or petty reasons, which are magically and emotionally translated into monumental concerns by those involved. Given the numerous outstanding problems our country faces, we no longer have the luxury to indulge in a politics of wounded pride. It appears to me that parties in opposition, whichever parties these may be at any particular time, practically wait for an opportunity to quit the Parliament. I beseech all parties not to boycott the Parliament, especially not its whole sessions or for several days. A group can walk out for an hour or perhaps even a day to register protest concerning a particular issue, but the parliament should not be boycotted for longer than that. Our honorable members of the Parliament are there for a particular reason, to do a particular job, to represent particular segments of the public, and to get certain concrete things done, and not to privilege emotion over reason and wisdom at every conceivable opportunity. An act of boycotting the Parliament for long periods of time makes a mockery of democracy, constitutes an abuse of the parliamentary system, and denigrates the value of parliamentary politics. We must therefore make a concerted effort to avoid lengthy boycotts of the Parliament.

An unfortunate development in this regard is the promotion by the party chiefs of the major parties of their sons to important party duties. It was started by BNP as it's party chief appointed her son to Joint Secretary General of the party over the heads of hundreds of party leaders. Now Awami league leader has brought in her son and it seems he is being prepared for senior party leadership. This is no democracy and this is an ominous sign.

A final issue I want to touch upon is that of law and order. During the fifteen years of democracy since 1991, law and order have deteriorated rapidly and the public perception is that the political parties are responsible for producing and sustaining a culture of "mastans." It is widely understood that we are being held hostage in our own country by mastans nurtured not by foreign elements but our own beloved political leaders, who claim to speak for us and to serve us. It seems to me that the best solution is for the major parties to purge their parties of mastans and to depend not on "mastan power" or money to secure political power but on public judgment of their abilities and performances on the ground.

In conclusion, let me say that while I have identified five or six problematic features of our democracy above, the core issues concern the behavior of the political parties and electoral reforms. Our political parties must behave in a democratic manner, in a manner befitting elements of civil society. They should hold dialogues with each other and this they clearly did not do over the past few years. They must make a genuine, concerted effort to shun money, muscle and politicization of the various national services. The opposition should not use frequent hartals and lengthy Parliament boycotts to make their points. All of these relate to the single core issue of truly civic , farsighted, rational , and mature behavior on the part of our political parties. The second issue concerns the reform of the electoral system, which I discussed above.

[Shah Abdul Hannan: A Former Secretary of the Government of Bangladesh.]