Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:21:30 -0800
From: "Md. Manzoor Murshed" <m_m_d@xxxxxxxx.xxxxSubject: Democracy, autocracy ... democracy, autocracy ...
RESOLVING CONFLICTS ABOUT CHOICE IN OUR OWN MINDS FIRST!
Dear friends at Shetubondhon,
Salam and Eid Mubarak.
As Conflict Resolution is Shetubondhon's current and the first Topic of the Month, it might be noteworthy that the political conflicts of the worst kind in our homeland does not seem to be heading toward any kind of meaningful resolution. Would Bangladesh ever have a functioning, stable and mature democracy? It's hard to say. Whether democracy or autocracy, apparently our national lot does not change in any fundamental way. Since the country's independence in 1971, we have been struggling to institutionalize democracy, but so far we did not have any meaningful success.
Observing the dysfunctionality of our democratic process and institutions, we are already showing signs of aroused interest in abandoning democracy. Apparently, in our society civil institutions are incapable to untangle the jams of our life, whether it is the traffic jam or the political jam. Thus, every now and then we have to bring the military to take care of the traffic jam - which sometimes might induce people to think that its not a bad idea to bring in the same good old soldiers (actually, generals) to take care of our political jams. Seeing the recent return of the military rule in Pakistan, there are now voices in Bangladesh as well who either are talking about or even aspiring the return of the autocracy that not too long ago we struggled to dismantle to bring about democracy.
Unfortunately, the reality is that we still do not have an abiding trust in or commitment to the long and arduous journey to a political system that is based on people's power and representation. Recently, I came across some comments of Erik von Kuehnelt- Leddihn regarding democracy that I found interesting. He was one of the prominent Central European thinkers and writers of twentieth century.
"Democracy - as 'democratism' - is an ideology, though in its simpler form it can be seen as a mere system, a procedure for "producing," i.e., for selecting a government. A democratic constitution offers a frame into which a picture can be fit through the voting process. The character of the picture is usually determined by the majority vote. ... The guardians of a democratic constitution have to maintain a neutral position toward all candidates, all parties, and all the ideas they represent. One man is as good as another, one opinion is as good as another, all men and all opinions are incited to participate in the race, and he who wins numerically gets the prize. Democracy as an abstract principle must insist on fair play, must express no preference - and thus must also condone political parties that would put an end to the democratic order. If 51 percent or, better still, two thirds of the people vote one or several anti-democratic parties into power, the end of democracy is at hand. In other words, DEMOCRACY CAN COMMIT SUICIDE DEMOCRATICALLY." [The Intercollegiate Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, back cover]
That made me thinking. If democracy can commit suicide democratically, all those who want to see the return of autocracy as it happened in Pakistan, are they trying to say that after the autocracy returns, somehow "AUTOCRACY CAN COMMIT SUICIDE AUTOCRATICALLY"?
Another word, somehow autocrats would simply decide to give up their autocracy and would become genuine forces for democracy? It would be hard to believe that those seeking the return of autocracy would like to have a permanent love affair with autocracy! It might also be worthwhile to note that history seems to indicate that democracy DOES NOT commit suicide to pave way for autocracy. Likewise, history also indicates that autocracy DOES NOT commit suicide either to pave way for democracy at a later time. What do you think?
Md. Manzoor Murshed
Assistant Professor of MIS
UIU