Bangladesh: Restructure or Face Consequence

The fact has remained that Bangladesh failed to uphold true democratic values even after forty years of existence. Sadly, the democratic process was halted by the very leader who had led the country to independence. Soon after freedom, his unilateral decision to establish a personal army and impose a one-party autocratic rule created a great setback for Bangladesh democracy. His heavy handed rule eventually cost him his life, and also brought fifteen years of successive military reign.

The election of 1990 was supposed to have paved the way to a democratic process. Instead, it has given rise to a different kind of authoritarian rule by establishing a dual family dynastic reign. At the center of it all now sit two politically inept ladies, Sheikh Hasina Wajed and Begum Khaleda Zia, who have inherited the leadership of the two dominating political parties in the country. They show no respect for democratic process and tolerate no dissension within their party, and government when in power.

The option people get in the election that follows is to choose one or the other party, thereby putting one or the other lady in power. While in power, these ladies often treat the country as if it were their family property; they rule autocratically, tolerate corruption, ignore or even sanction human rights abuse, and most importantly, promote and implement their personal agendas with little regard to general welfare. The existing system is best described as democratic authoritarianism since regular election only leads to an autocratic rule.

The ladies have their own army of die-hard supporters. Most are core supporters, while others came from different political spectrum, left, right or center, driven by their personal ambition. At times there is a race to join the winning party even by those who claim to be the champion of democratic rights. Their apparent goal for joining is simply to gain personal benefits. Incredibly, the country's ex-President also came to line up behind the leader who sacked him from the highest office.

In addition to the unscrupulous politicians, the so-called intellectuals of the country are lending support to the present autocratic system in Bangladesh. To be fair, the country's intellectuals would fall into three categories - two of which are advantageously aligned with the two parties who support and defend their policies. Of the third group, most prefer to keep quiet for fear of imminent reprisals, while a few who remain vocal fail to make much difference.

If a country's progress is somehow attributed to its intellectuals or political thinkers, the blame for any failure should be shared by them as well. The corrupt politicians are indeed responsible for the failure to establish a functioning democratic system in Bangladesh. Yet, the intellectuals couldn't escape their responsibilities for failing to properly resist, educate or warn the people on the impact of autocratic family dynastic rule. Those who continue to believe that something good might come out of the present scandalous system are clearly being dishonest to them and the nation.

Under Bangladesh's unitary system of government all important decisions are made at the center. It would be impracticable to run a country of 160 million people with such a centralized system. For the smooth functioning of government and the fostering of economic growth, power decentralization into several provinces is well overdue. But neither of the country's governing ladies is willing to decentralize the country's administration for fear of losing their absolute authority.

The world is currently on a change mode where the younger generation is taking charge and using the internet to their advantage. Whoever thought that an unemployed college student in Tunisia could ignite the “Arab Spring” by sacrificing his own life? Once powerful autocratic rulers in the Middle East have fallen like houses of cards; even developed countries are feeling the pinch from the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Could Bangladesh be too far behind?

The people are the source of power, and given the opportunity Bangladeshi people seem quite ready to exercise their power. In a recently held municipal election, people have shown their disdain for the current system by electing a courageous lady as their mayor who didn't get a party endorsement. But, to hide their infamy, both political parties rushed to quickly embrace the winner - immediately before or after the election.

For better or worse, change is bound to come to Bangladesh. The obvious question is - what kind of change will that be, or at what price?

The options for the country are quite clear – either democratize and decentralize, or plunge into anarchy. Time is running out. As reported by the country's news media, the level of dangerous violence, mysterious killings, political assaults and slayings that the country is now experiencing point to already a serious lawlessness situation. The escalation of such violence both within and outside of each party is constantly being fueled and encouraged by hostile acts of both parties where democracy has no footing.

Bangladesh has a great potential to forge ahead economically with minimal foreign help only if it had a functioning democracy in place. The two feuding leadership families, which control the country's politics and governance, are engaged in promoting their personal agendas with no regard to national interests. They lack the integrity and conviction to politically do the right thing, or right the wrong. The current system is fundamentally flawed and must therefore be changed for the good of the country.

Bangladesh would plunge into an anarchical state like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia unless the destructive policies of the two dominant parties are effectively reversed and true democratic reforms are put into place. It's imperative that the key supporters of the present autocratic system realize this ominous fact and take appropriate action to save the country from the imminent gloom. Otherwise, the consequence would be dreadful from which no one in the country would escape unharmed. As the seventh largest country in population, the world order would also be enormously affected by such an outcome.

(The author teaches Economics at SUNY Farmingdale, and formerly taught at Long Island University)