Can the government govern itself?

Party interests and national interests have rarely aligned in the history of Bangladesh, and because of the “party-archies” there is an acute dearth of strong and credible institutions in the country that can create a landscape for fairer politics. It is still premature to say that the public have won without there being any concrete agenda for correcting the historical wrongs. Institution-building and institutionalization of best practices are a decades-long process; so regardless of the promise this transitional moment holds in the history of the country, we should tread forward with some caution. The question is, can the government govern itself? In Bangladesh’s case, that is a clear no. There is engagement, enthusiasm, and energy around the issues of substance, but the political vacuum might lead the country in a regressive direction if, ultimately, we have to turn towards the vanguard of old leadership. No work has been put into developing party institutions. The problem with parties in Bangladesh is that their activism relies on backward-looking and person-centric politics and revolves around a single leader. Cultish attitudes such as pledging allegiance to one leader over the state are performative, and such performance is normalized in Bangladeshi politics.

The reason why robust political institutions have not been built during the country’s lifetime is because the state apparatus is used to serve the party in power, not the people. This is a part of the broader political culture, and it will be a difficult journey out. People do not want to replace dictators with dictators. Tangible liberation is only possible when Bangladeshis can meet their full potential, when minorities do not need special protection, when people can express their views without the fear of backlash; we are not there yet. In a democratic, free and fairer Bangladesh, Bangladeshis can be pro-any social or political party, pro-any brand, and advocate for their ideologies without repercussions. The political bifurcation and polarization in the country is murky because it is not based on differences of any substantial policy issue between the opposing parties. Each party, while in power, has depleted the state of its resources to cater to the top leadership’s and party’s goals at the expense of national interests. They have broken and bent their own laws without remorse and have blamed the opposition and mysterious third-party actors for failure and unrest.

For all the latest news, follow The Daily Star’s Google News channel.

Students fought for equality and justice. Valorising looting and misogynistic language takes away from the strong ethical ground on which the student movement is established. While the former ruling government was in power, there were many unsubstantiated claims that the movement had been hijacked by the opposition and “miscreants,” but there is more danger of misappropriating the goals and the language of the movement now that it has accomplished a tangible political outcome. The iconoclastic nature of desecrating the founding father’s statue is deeply disturbing—denying the founding narrative of the nation because we seem not to see beyond the euphoria of this moment. Regardless of Awami League’s atrocities, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has his own indelible place in the birth of this nation.

The public display of disdain does not bode well and is not conducive to creating a culture where democracy can flourish. We need to come out of our culture of belittling, shaming, looting, and euphoric mob violence if we really want good and reliable leadership, because at the end of the day, leaders are the reflection of their people, and vice versa. A dictator cannot be a dictator without support. We need a radical change in how we envision good and effective leadership and build institutions that can allow good leadership. A strong leader is not one who projects power through terror. A strong leader knows how to initiate institutions, how to adapt, listen, delegate, how to activate people to meet their potential, and take a back seat when it is necessary. The country could go in any direction, although the participation of students and civil society in creating a framework for the interim government shows promise.

So, what should be the expectation from the interim government? The country is in shambles as it grapples with significant economic and political challenges further intensified by the current vacuum. The interim government needs to prioritize institution-building since it is only an interim government, so that the country can be ready to be handed over to good leadership. It needs to prepare the country for a democratic and fair government and simultaneously create a political culture that fosters good leadership through setting precedents of collaboration. The country cannot move forward without addressing regulations that allow political parties to drain state resources and use terror to secure party interests. Establishing good governance and effective public service delivery should be the interim leadership’s prime goals. We are in a moment of negative peace—an undesirable government has been ousted—but that does not mean that historical wrongs will be addressed adequately. Nothing guarantees progress unless we implement measures of accountability and build institutions that are capable of being fair, transparent, non-partisan, and impartial in fulfilling their functions regardless of which party takes power.

In a study exploring democratization in 15 post-conflict societies that include countries like Bosnia, Cambodia, Liberia, and Timor Leste, it was found that the design of the interim governments is foundational in determining the democratization prospects and processes of countries after a period of conflict or shock. Factors such as inclusion of conflicting parties and diverse actors in the transitional government, putting institutional constraints on the executive and decentralization of power and governance to local levels have led to higher successes in democratization, as power-sharing de-escalate risks of subsequent conflicts. Delegation of power provides more definite channels for transparency and accountability and more chances for civic participation. The point about conducting a fair election soon has been mentioned repeatedly, both by military and political establishments and movement actors. However, the template of a fair election assumes that there are credible processes, institutions, options, and state capacity in place to conduct and sustain a fair election. Premature elections can lead to an outcome with non-democratic actors and unfair power-grabbers. Election is the end point of the interim government; therefore, much more work needs to be put into this major assignment that would determine the success of this transitional moment.

Bangladeshis do not want a transfer of power from criminal regimes to criminal regimes, so the choices that voters have at the ballot box would be most important. Choice should not be limited to the lesser of the two evils. As Sarjis Alam, one of the leaders of the anti-discrimination student movement, aptly says, the movement is against the system of reputation, not a particular oppressor. The purpose of a democratic election would fail if it is used to elect an undemocratic leader.

The meetings that the army chief had with different political parties and civil society representatives to ponder on the future of the country are the kinds of meetings that should be part of the regular political practice. Governments should consult with the opposition and the public, work on laws, regulations, and national strategies collectively so that they can align with national interests. Practices of finding common ground and collective participation should be instilled in institutional mechanisms and processes for decision-making. There should be opportunities for civic engagement and scope for compassionate and smart leadership so leadership can be efficient in its response to the public—so that being in the streets is not the only way to get the country moving. Historically, Bangladesh has had vibrant student movements, but that has not translated into a vibrant democracy so far. The interim government, along with sustained efforts from students, will be instrumental in creating the landscape for effective democracy during this post-conflict phase.

The model of the transitional government often determines what comes next. One political likely challenge for the upcoming transitional government will be containing oppositional and retaliatory forces and bypassing episodes of unrest that curb chances of establishing an effective democracy. The point of the anti-discrimination movement is to break away from the vestiges of the old regimes and build an independent nation where public dignity is protected, where people’s potential is met. This transitional moment will be vital in fashioning an effective succession—a legitimate, viable and a fair one, so that the mass atrocities that have been normalized throughout our political history are never repeated. Bangladeshis need institutions that they can trust, a system in service of the people, a government that can govern itself.

Sarzah Yeasmin is a Boston-based Bangladeshi writer. She works at Harvard Kennedy School and is currently pursuing a micro-master’s in data and economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, comments and analyzes by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.