Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelley :
Democratic deficits negate peoples’ participation in the affairs of the state. When this deficits increase disproportionately, states start failing. State failure can be viewed from three angles: the Colonial, Marxist economic and Yeatsian. One viewpoint holds colonial legacy to be the root of all evils. It explains failure of states and leaders in terms of colonial attitudes and approaches which proved unworkable in post-colonial situations. Again, according to this explanation, many of the ills contributing to degeneration of states in the post-colonial era issue from the wily onslaughts of neo-colonial machinations of old and new colonial and imperial powers. The Marxist-economic view holds unbridled capitalist exploitation and repression of the proletariat and resultant class-conflicts responsible for the decline and breakdown of states.According to the Yeatsian explanation the decay and break-up of states occur on account of innate tendency of things to be dismantled. As W.B. Yeats wrote: “… and the centre does not hold, things fall apart”. Each and all of these views contain elements of truth. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the causes of decline and fall of states are both external and internal. As in the past so also in the present external contexts and processes contribute to the crises of states. Internal factors further compound the situation.In many instances internal rather than external factors play significant role in reducing the strength of states. In all cases of states threatened with failures, rising expectations and rising irritations of people constitute a great challenge for incapable and power-hungry leaders. The twin wave of pluralistic democracy and open market economy which started sweeping the world since the end of the cold war, heightened expectations in many developing and less developed countries. People there are voicing demands for better quality of life under democracy and market friendly economy. “We are talking of course, about basic needs: food, safe water, the elimination of widespread poverty and human misery. But we are also talking about human dignity, security, a feeling of belonging. The feeling of isolation and vulnerability is one that can be understood in countries of the North as well as South. But in the South, the challenges are often more immediate, and, without adequate resources, the solutions are more elusive”. Meeting these demands need great statesmanship and effective governance. Where governance is inadequate lively linkages between the society and the state becomes difficult, if not impossible. In recent times several countries of the South and some even in the North have witnessed virtual disintegration of their societies. The burning example is Somalia where society has practically broken up and the state exists only in name. Grave crises stare many others in the face. Aptly has it been said, “Economic prosperity makes democracy possible, political leaders make it real”. For states threatened with failure, politics is of prime importance in arresting the downslide. Most failing and failed states are featured by seemingly irreconcilable division. In multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-linguistic societies the lines of separation are drawn along ethnic, religious and linguistic contours. In such societies political leaders are subject to exacting pressures generated by multi-dimensional differences. Other states, even with largely homogeneous population, have not been fortunate. While the heterogeneous states face greater challenges homogeneous ones are not always immune to the dangers of divisive conflicts. Ideological difference, even though minimal, intensified by myopic, stubborn and dogmatic leaders may and do lead to disproportionate intensification of rivalry and animosity. This in its turn may result in sharp division, even polarization of the society. Antipathy may cause violent conflict leading to grave instability and dangerous disorder. All this spells out a prescription for a failing and failed state.Democratic deficits: ‘Uncertain’ or ‘illiberal’ democracies, deviate from the universal democratic norms. In these distorted systems political parties and their leaders do not help build and preserve national consensus on basic issues. Differing viewpoints do not find mutual accommodation. Intolerance vitiates the political and social environment. Dissention and disunity become the order of the day. In consequence, political parties advocating differing ideologies and programs attempt to draw peoples support not by democratic persuasion but by force, overt or covert. Their political strategies are, therefore, often a mix of craft and coercion.In this situation power becomes a vital instrument to be used not necessarily to achieve people’s freedom and welfare but to attain dominance of the winning side. Consequently elections, even when apparently free and fair, become transformed into a ‘zero sum game’ where the winner takes all. Needless to say elections in these circumstances weaken, rather than strengthen democracy. Further, these also pave the way to the establishment of elective autocracies.Once in power the political parties concerned and their leaders tend to reduce the strength and role of the defeated opposition. The inclination to ride rough shod over the opposition impedes the operation of the party system, a vital component of pluralist democracy. As a result democracy receives a body-blow and is considerably dwarfed. Repetition of this harmful process has been witnessed in countries such as Bangladesh, Sir Lanka, Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe over the recent decades. In such avowedly democratic countries competition for capturing state power is transformed into fiercely combative contest. In such situations the reduction of the opposition is sought to be achieved by a deliberate process of fostering patron-client relationship between the leader and the party in power and various key segments of the society. Democratic governance involves political mobilization on the basis of class and economic interests, fair political contestation for legitimacy of control over state institutions. It derives its origin mainly from Weberian concept of bureaucratic rationality in which formal institutions and well-defined procedures work. Close and symbiotic relations are visualized between the political process of democracy and economic process of capitalism. Political process in a democratic or democratizing country has great stake in the health of the capitalist economy. What about the developing societies like Bangladesh where capitalism is yet to become mature and democratic governance still unrealized? Weberian discourse recognizes the concept of patrimonialism as a pre-capitalist mode of political and economic organizations, where authority and legitimacy flow from traditional bondages, kinship, clans etc. But what we observe in the developing parts of the world is prevalence of patrons and followers brought together not necessarily by traditional bonds but inevitably by exchange relationship in which the dependents, clients or followers exchange their loyalty, support, and if necessary, muscle power in lieu of patronage and booties. In essence, consent and legitimacy do not flow from primordial values, as in patrimonialism but from money, opportunities and protection. Some analysts call it neo-patrimonialism because there may be façade of deference and consent. The essence of patron-client relationship is personalized control over resources, opportunities and decisions, factional mobilization and contestation. Politics in states such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and several African countries is characterized by patron-client networks which have been enhanced by the expanse and strength of informal governance.The contenders, both winners and losers, in national elections, do not seem to have confidence in normal politics and in the effectiveness of their respective party in maintaining or acquiring power. In consequence, the competition for power becomes distorted and polluted. The leaders of the ruling party try to secure their positions and ensure victory in the subsequent elections by arrogating to themselves a monopoly of state resources. Important institutions of the state are brought under the overpowering control and domination of the ruling party. This enables it to distribute favours to its clients who as beneficiaries in key positions in bureaucracy, business and professions are expected to help the patron, i.e., the ruling party in maintaining and prolonging its rule.The excessive spread and intensification of patron-client relationship between the rulers and loyal segments of the society create negative impacts on less developed polities. Patron-client relationship, in these cases, contributes to the weakening of the state instead of strengthening it. Important state institutions such as the civil bureaucracy, local government, legislature and judiciary are politicised as part of expanding network of patron-client relationship.Failing and failed states also witness a deliberate process of dwarfing of local governments by nearsighted political parties and their leaders. In many post-colonial states, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, successive governments led by different political parties distort the inherited system of autonomous local government. The practice of exercising intensive and extensive control over local governments through bureaucracy and the Members of Parliaments result in the undesirable dwarfing of these representative bodies. Monopolization of local level development funds by the ruling party results in uneven and often inequitable development in the concerned areas. Further, continuous and stable development is also endangered by disruption of the system when change of government brings another party to power.In fragile states the process of ‘capture’ spreads beyond state institutions. Political forces, locked in combat for power, engage themselves in dividing the society along the ‘we’ and ‘they’ line. Professionals, including physicians, engineers, teachers, journalists, businessmen are politicised and become clients of different major political parties. Combative competition for increasing the financial might of the political parties causes a dangerous distortion in free-market economy. Encouragement and promotion of crony capitalism and enterprise creates an unfriendly environment for market friendly economy and opens wide the avenues of clientalist corruption. This degenerative process leads to wanton plunder and wastage of national resources and eats into the vitals of the economy. Consequently, the downslide of the state as an institution is further speeded up. Resources acquired by corrupt monopolization and manipulation of the economy are often used to maintain and promote ‘muscle power’ manifest in illegally armed party cadres. Such unhealthy practice disrupts the rule of law and democrative processes further endangering the state. In many cases failing and failed states are the products of imposition of personal rule in fledging democracies. The cult of personality is usually nurtured and strengthened in developing democracies featured by charismatic leadership with dynastic credentials. In such situations personality becomes more dominant than the system. Both the government and the party are dominated by the unchallenged power of the top leader and democracy is dwarfed within the government and the party in power and without. Lack of democratic practices in dominant political parties poses dangerous challenges to the democratic state. In the present day world the fragile fortunes of failing and failed states are often the products of failing leadership. Leadership of this kind emerges from the womb of distorted and polluted politics and works to sustain derailed democracies. Overriding involvement of dominant parties with the politics of power reinforce fierce political combat rather than healthy and democratic competition. Rivalry for state-power weakens and destroys national consensus on core issues, divides the nation and fosters disunity. A divided people become the hostage of nearsighted struggles of major political parties which try to rally popular support under the leadership of charismatic and dynastic leaders. In their own turn such leaders tend to use state power and resources to build up a patron-client network within and outside state institutions to perpetuate themselves in power. These undemocratic and anti-democratic activities constitute the ‘heart of the darkness’ of democratic deficits.The role of the media:It is basically the efforts of the society concerned which can effectively arrest the expansion of such deficits. Nevertheless, the media, both national and international, can and have played significant roles in recent times to limit, if not halt, the process. Admittedly under the sway of virtual dictators in an avowedly democratic set up the national media suffer from grave restrictions and limitations. Even then in various instances media have braved persecution and repression to challenge undemocratic conduct by leaders determined to stay in power through rigged elections. The contributions of the international media have been greater and more significant in such cases. The most remarkable success story of recent times is found in the case of Ivory Coast. Here in the wake of October 2010 elections the defeated incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo refused to concede victory to the internationally recognized winner, Alassane Ouattara. “The ensuing four-month stand-off was only ended when Mr. Ouattara’s forces overran the south of the country, finally capturing Mr. Gbagbo and declaring him deposed. In November 2011, Mr. Gbagbo was transferred to the Hague to stand trial at the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity.”Though the force of arms of the supporters of winner led to this end, the contributions of the international community in general and media in particular were vital. These created the moral and popular environment for realising the victory of the real winner.Again, in Zimbabwe the elective autocracy of President Robert Mugabe continues in power by a mix of coercion and craft even after lapse of almost three decades. Nevertheless, the efforts to make up the democratic deficits here are still on. The people and opposition forces of Zimbabwe are carrying on the struggle with patient courage. The international media are continuing to help their fight for establishing real democracy. In other countries, such as Congo and various frail democracies in several developing countries of Asia, Africa and Middle East, the people continue to strive for achieving true democracies. International and national media are relentlessly supporting them. Although immediate success may not be achieved in all cases the media’s efforts are holding out hopes for triumph as people become more organized and stronger and dictatorship in the garb of democracy gradually but surely weakens and tumbles. (The author, founder Chairman of Centre for Development Research, Bangladesh (CDRB) and Editor quarterly “Asian Affairs” was a former teacher of political science of Dhaka University and former member of the erstwhile Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) and former non-partisan technocrat Cabinet Minister of Bangladesh.)
