Assessing democratic governance in 'moderate Muslim democracies'

Moazzem Hossain, The Daily Star, Asia News Network, Dhaka

Through the courtesy of Bill Clinton, Bangladesh is known in the West as a Moderate Muslim Democracy (MMD).

During his visit in 2000, the former U.S. President said that being a Muslim majority nation, Bangladesh has successfully conducted a few general elections in the past and the country is being ruled with the mandate of the majority people since the 1991.

Some commentators -- including this author -- however went against the wishes of the President and insist elsewhere that democracy is always secular and liberal and there is no Muslim or Christian democracy.

It seems, Clinton was willing to endorse those Muslim majority nations as MMDs that have some sort of democratic practices in place -- for example, holding general elections at regular intervals.

Bangladesh, Indonesia and Turkey (all Muslim majority nations) fall under this category. The exception is Malaysia. No one calls Malaysia an MMD (also a Muslim majority nation) since it has successfully implemented and followed almost all the basic principles of liberal democracy over the last half a century.

In this commentary, we would like to argue that even a so- called MMD is no longer justified for Bangladesh any more. The nation has made a "U-turn" as far as being an MMD is concerned.

This commentary further argues that the major features of Bangladesh's MMD status are none other than: Thriving corruption, notorious cadre politics and uncontrolled criminal activities -- in short, the "triple-C."

In its last 34 years of existence, Bangladesh has experienced three regimes: A short-lived democracy immediately after independence (1971-1975); a military-turned-civil authoritarian regime (1975-1990); and a so-called Moderate Muslim Democracy (1991- present).

Except for the initial democratic period, the duration of the authoritarian and MMD regimes were almost equal: 15 years each. It apparently shows that the triple-C has thrived at an unprecedented speed in the last 15 years (1991-present) compared to that of the preceding authoritarian regime (1975-1990).

This is not what the people wanted when they brought down the military-turned-civilian rulers in 1990. Almost universally, the people extended full support to the politicians of both persuasions (AL and BNP).

Consequently, both the parties by turn ruled the nation.

In 2001, however, the BNP assumed power again, and is now leading the government under a four-party alliance.

The way democracy has unfolded in Bangladesh in the last 15 years, one may ask whether our politicians lived up to the trust bestowed by the people to them in 1990.

Without hesitation, the answer is a resounding "no."

There is no need to argue the "no" case, since the corruption, cadre, and crime are no longer secret weapons in the Bangladesh body politic.

They have been breeding unchallenged everywhere, anywhere, and anytime. By all means, what has been happening in the areas of corruption, cadre politics, and crime in the recent years is quite staggering.

The question is "why?"

All past and present governments failed to recognize the role of the opposition in the affairs of the nation. In any democracy including an MMD, the opposition is regarded as the opposite side of a same coin. The way all the governments under the so-called MMD handled opposition in the street and in parliament was not seen ever before even during the worst time of the military- turned-civil regime in the late 1980s.

In particular, the heavy-handed approach followed by the incumbent surpassed all the previous records.

The opposition leader and her party colleagues are facing physical extermination and literally living under a constant threat on life.

How is it possible for the opposition leader to become an effective opponent while she has technically been under house arrest since Aug. 21, 2004, after an attempt on her life?

Then, she lost more than 20 of her leaders and workers.

Since this period, the incumbent has failed to restore the opposition leader's full mobility within the country with adequate safety and security. Moreover, the unsecured status of the opposition politicians as a whole led to the killing of two front ranking leaders of the AL (Shah AMS Kibria and Ahasanullah Master).

Under these political circumstances, the government remains unmoved and the Home Ministry remains stubbornly unaccountable.

It seems that the term accountability is unheard of under the rules of the BNP-alliance. One may, however, insist that this is nothing new in Bangladesh politics. During the immediate past AL- led government, the then opposition leader (current PM) and her colleagues also suffered from similar kinds of insecurity.

While this may be true, it is certain that no MP's life was lost due to assassination. Most importantly, the safety of then opposition leader was kept at zero risk since she was residing in a no-go zone (Dhaka Cantonment) of the Dhaka city.

In contrast, if one looks at the current housing and safety measures taken by the state for the present opposition leader, this has no match.

The opposition leader deserves similar treatment to what was received by her predecessor, at least in safety and security terms.

Both the PM and the opposition leader, irrespective of party politics, deserve fool-proof security in this era of terror and uncertainty.

One must not forget that in the parliamentary system the opposition leader is considered as the alternate prime minister. In this regard, both of our leaders are living proof.

In essence, without a proper role for the opposition in the affairs of the nation, no democracy is meaningful, MMD or otherwise. Without this role in place the triple-C (corruption, cadre, and crime) will certainly remain unchallenged and will invite another man-made catastrophe.

In conclusion, we are well aware that none of the commentaries delivered on this subject by members of the civil society or the editorials appearing in this daily reached even the bottom rung of the political ladder, since we know that no one takes them seriously.

Unfortunately, the corruption, cadre politics and crime under the so-called MMD have reached such a point that the very security of the nation is at stake.

A nation state cannot tolerate endemic corruption, notorious cadre politics and uncontrolled criminal activities for an indefinite period. In an alarming environment such as this, the politics of arrogance and intolerance must be avoided to save whatever democracy remains in Bangladesh.

The writer is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.