Bangldesh is not ready for democracy

Its apparent mostly because:

1) It has failed to result in anything substantially good (a society, country, populace)

2) By its very definition it allows the outnumbering of an educated understanding populace by the uneducated

3) It legitimizes for evil to run for government.(If we want to forget the popular example of Hitler's rise to power ,in our case, the saying goes “vote for lesser of the evils". I am unwilling to knowingly do that as long as they are evil in any sense)

But I will elaborate further.

Governments have been ever alternating since the inception of “democracy” in the 90s, perhaps standing to prove that none of the major alliances/parties have been successful enough in governing to get themselves re-elected. In other words, something(s) goes (possibly horribly) wrong somewhere and the people opt for the alternative option.Every regime has seen a more turbulent transition period than the previous , marked by mass protests, a state of lawlessness and most importantly unexpected financial loss to individuals. This could be direct or indirect loss of finances,  but the primary motivator in deciding votes remains money. Ours is a country where crisis stemming from identity or violence is yet to lead the people to revolt or react. Financial grievances being the sole motivator of choosing candidates, ultimately loses the wider objective of achieving development and good governance in the long term and this leads me to conclude the electorate is not yet ready for democracy.

To elaborate further on this point, in a country where 76 % of the people do not earn 2 dollars a day (World Bank 2010),it is absolutely possible that many of this huge number of people will vote in exchange for one hundred taka. There is a number of legitimate works done by national and international organizations observing the seventh, eighth and ninth elections in Bangladesh that name “vote-buying” as a rampant occurrence of violation of the official code of conduct. UNDP publishes:”The corrupting influence of money on politics is yet another lesson of 2006-2007…Vote buying and influence peddling were said to be rampant, and politics began to merge with corruption and criminality.” Another interesting and related fact, published in a research collaboration between CMI Norway and CPD Dhaka, revealed that the number of businessmen in politics was less than 30% in the 1970s while the percentage has jumped to a staggering 56% in 2012[1].

Nor is it practical to trust a government that is elected by an electorate that is primarily uneducated (I did not say illiterate). Elitist as it may sound, it is not possible for the common villager to think beyond his immediate personal benefits let alone foresee long term solutions for his locality while voting. (I am aware of one Aroj Ali Matbor. But I know of only one such person from a population of 140 million). Which brings me to my next point.

It is more important to recognize that democracy is likely to emerge and survive only when certain social and cultural conditions are in place. These social and cultural values are instilled in the people and developed through the process of modernization and industrialization. It is in fact believed that during early industrialization, authoritarian states are just as likely to attain high rates of economic growth as are democracies. It is this when a certain threshold of economic development is reached, there comes a change in people’s behavior and expectations in that an educated mass is created which believes in free thinking and participating in governance of their state or society. Sadly, any other development indicator will tell us how far off we are from being a free thinking liberated society that is ready to take part in decisions that will affect our lives. 

Now, the idea of reforming political parties (with business people being banned from politics and accountability and transparency being instilled) and all that is already there. As Inkles (1991) correctly points out: “There can be no meaningful democracy at the national level without a system of stable, responsive and responsible political parties.” A separate discussion may be pursued on the proposition of reform of political parties for Bangladesh as these have only worked diligently as a mean to spreading patrimonial* administration . Another alternative that comes to mind is that of having a selected electorate who have a certain pre-determined amount of education, income and may provide exhibition of their social/scholarly work to be approved by the EC or a similar body until the time comes when that basic needs of majority of the population are fulfilled (food, education, health services for 100% of the people). Other recommendations such as reform of party constitution etc. and an independent justice system of course stand.

But somewhere in the very definition of government or rulers the word selfless needs to be instilled. And now that all this has started to sound a bit dreamy, I will paraphrase Plato in defining rulers in a way that has them possess the virtue of wisdom. Plato’s republic is to be ruled by people who are rigorously trained for the purpose of ruling and is over greed and all that humanly flaws. It may sound impractical but it does at the end of it contain all the right elements that a government, if not one person, should possess.

The fact that USA and some other countries in the West are frantic to promote democracy worldwide should not be proof enough for it to be the best option. Nor should it be the sentiment that everyone should have a say in how their life is being governed. Before going too far it must be remembered that most of the countries in the west started out as non-democracies and gradually moved into becoming democracies.

*Patrimonialism - form of governance in which all power flows directly from the leader.

[1] http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/4423-parliament-of-bangladesh-boycotts-business.pdf