Dr. Zahurul Alam :
Democracy is rule of the people. The term has been defined by the philosophers, social scientists and statesmen at various stages of social development in different manners from different perspectives. However, the fundamentals of democracy, expressed in its inalienable association with the rights and participation of the people have remained the same. ‘Demos’ (people) and ‘Kratos'(power) the two absolute components of democracy could never be taken off from democracy.
Democracy has voyaged a long way to take current shape. Contemporary world witnesses democracy of different types and natures. The differentiations of democracy globally by the social analysts are based on the level of functionality of people’s power, rule of law, participation, human rights and many other aspects. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index based on electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, political participation, political culture and functioning of the government is one of the documents that provides notion about the state of democracy worldwide. The 2014 Index of EIU as in the previous six indices since 2006 has categorized four regime types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. Despite some methodological deficiencies, the conclusions of EIU Democracy Index are indicative of the state of global democratic and political environment, of which most important is that a large proportion of countries and population in the world still remains under authoritarian regimes. In 2014, 37.6 percent of the world population residing in 52 countries was under authoritarian regimes, while only 12.5 percent of them enjoyed full democracy living in 24 countries mainly of Europe, North America and Australia. Uruguay, Mauritius, Japan, South Korea and Costa Rica are the exceptions in this group. Around 36 percent of the global population residing overwhelmingly in the ‘Third World’ countriesis under ‘Flawed Democracies’. Democracy in India has been categorized by the EIU as ‘Flawed Democracy’. Bangladesh categorized by the EIU as a hybrid regime (which is questionable) ranks above all other countries in South Asia except India. This reference of EIU understandably is not to justify fully the conclusions of the mentioned reports. However, the politicians, social scientists, human rights organizations and the people of the world need to understand and recognize that democracy has not appeared overnight, and that the ‘rule of the people’ has refined through practice for centuries and through active involvement of the people in the democratic process. More the people gained power to get involved in the decision making system, stronger became democracy and its institutions. People need to be aware of the fact that any type of authoritarianism destroys democratic institutions in the countries and serves as the exploitative instruments in the hands of the regimes, including unconstitutional power capturers. Undoubtedly, democracy in Bangladesh could achieve much higher level by EIU standards if the nation could avoid military interventions in state power after the brutal killings of 1975 and obstinate exertions by the military dictators to destroy achievements of the liberation movement and war for independence, of which democracy and secularism were the most important components. Similarly, introduction of one-party rule in 1975 (Jan) was a serious blow to the smooth functioning of democracy in Bangladesh.
Ancient Greece is considered as the birthplace of democracy that opposed absolute authoritarianism and tyranny back in 507 B.C. The limitation set by the Athenian democracy was in its definition of citizens. The democracy of Athens sanctioned voting and speaking rights of ‘all citizens’. However, women, landless and the slaves, among many others, were not considered as the citizens. This resulted in sidelining of more than 85 percent of the population of the city state from democratic participation and decision making. Poor participation of the people restricted accountability enormously and human rights were at the lowest level. Despite those deficiencies, that was a democracy of the ancient age of which mankind could not even dream at that juncture of human history.
Exact chronology of development of democracy is difficult to ascertain, although social science approves Spartan and Roman democracies as major milestones of democratic development of mankind in the ancient world. Those democracies also set similar limitations as in the Athenian democracy in defining a citizen. In Rome, the votes of the noble families had more value in terms of decision making and conducting state affairs.
During the Middle Age the world was dominated overwhelmingly by tyrannies, totalitarianisms and absolutisms. Despite this the democratic norms in limited scales were practiced in many parts of the Globe in different manners. Limited people’s participation were allowed by the kings, emperors and other rulers in India (south India and Bengal) in 1000 A.D. Other similar developments took place in some of the Slovac kingdoms, in the city states of Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Amalfi, San Marino, Veche, Pskov, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Sakai (Japan), North Caucasus, Ireland, etc. The nobles or the kings designed the norms and the level of participation of the people. People or citizen definitions were not universal, as it is in modern democracy. Most important step towards modern democracy was signing of Magna Carta in 1215 by King John that contained considerably the authority of the King of England. The Parliament’s authority was enhanced and the state of civil rights improved with the signing of this document. Notably, King John was forced to sign this document, which is indicative of the fact that the people under the umbrella of different social forces had to fight for establishing their rights throughout the history. Even after the signing of Magna Carta, it took 50 years for the people of England to have first national assembly in 1265.
The world had to wait for a long time and the mankind had long struggle before it established one of the most important cornerstones of modern democracy – the Universal Adult Franchise. UK incorporated voting rights to all eligible adult, male and female, only in 1928. In France, that right was introduced after the Second World War (1945). In Switzerland the women did not have the right to vote till 1973. In USA, the African- Americans got voting rights in 1965, implying that they did not have the right to be elected as people’s representatives till that time. According to the US constitution (Section 1, Article 2) ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.’
The voyage of democracy continues. Each democratic practice by each nation, community or society
refines democracy each day. The achievements of democracy over 2500 years or more are enormous, but the system has to proceed further with more scopes for enhancing the best principles that it has produced and nurtured since inception: equality, participation and rights.
Understanding the essence of democracy is essential for recognizing that there is no shortcut in a democratic system to go to power. There are set and well-practiced democratic rules, norms, principles and procedures that need to be followed and complied with in governing the country or intending to do that in a democratic system. Avoiding those, democracy can never be attained, sustained or strengthened. Democratic power capture is based on people’s mandate through elections. At the same time participation in the elections is also a voluntary activity. The political parties do not have any obligation to join any election what so ever. If parties do not join, that would not mean that the elections involving the remaining parties should be stopped or declared null and void. The political parties that remain outside the electoral process imposing self-embargo or disallowed by the election commission must wait for the term to be accomplished, or proceed with legal procedures. This is how justice and equality are ensured in the democratic elections. However, polls should be free, fair and widely participator to gain legitimacy.
Democracy does not allow undemocratic capture of power or bringing to power anybody or any group that do not represent the people or in other words not elected by the people. Each democratic country’s constitution provides precise guidelines of representation policy and method. The democratic forces need to follow those guidelines in all instances. It denies imposition and invites agreements. However, those agreements should follow democratic norms and must be within the democratic framework.
Democracy’s bounteousness allowing enhancement of different opinions and freedom of expression and activities very often cannot put reasonable limit to the opponents of democracy in propagating and acting against democracy and democratic values. Instead, the undemocratic forces very often act aggressively using all their legal and illegal instruments against democracy in the name of democratic rights. Chalking out a short cut to power without the consent of the people but with the help of any other force domestic or foreign is against democratic norm and must lead to devastating result for that force at the end of the day, because, the reasons for anti-establishment acts would not be clear to the people who will refrain from participating in the activities conducted by those forces.
The question thus lies in whether or not democracy shall react to the destructive activities using its administrative and legal forces. Is democracy mandated to initiate discussion with the terrorist forces in the name of democratic consensus and creation of a platform for democracy in collaboration with the anti-democratic forces that act against the security of the state, government and of the life and properties of the people?
A democratic government must understand precisely that democracy is destined for protecting the rights of the people, protecting peace and harmony in the society, ensuring people’s participation. In upholding these basic principles, democracy should function uncompromisingly.
One of the major elements that has strengthened democracy in the developed world is its ability to identify the effective manner of practicing democracy and stick to that, and the other is that the regimes in the countries of that world could be explicit about the logic of non-coexistence of democracy and violence. Terror, hostility and violence are contrary to democracy, in whatever means they may be expressed or at whatever time they may be exercised. Democracy is built on consensus with limitations set by the democratic norms themselves. Democracy is non-compromising to the acts that violate human rights, that terrorize innocent citizens and that conduct genocide. Even the propagators of terrorism and violence are brought to justice by a people’s democracy if that appears to be a real potential threat against democracy. Thus, in democracy there is no scope for making any compromise with forces that might harm exercise of democratic rights of the people. The clear principle is that one should exercise his rights to the extent that does not infringe others rights. None has the right to undermine rights of the other in the name of upholding his own right. For democracy to stand on solid footings all above principles are needed to be complied with by applying hierarchy of importance, most important being the inalienable rights of the people of their life and peaceful existence. Attempts or actions potentially dangerous for the safety or security of the people are excluded by the democratic norms and values.
Three fundamental values of democracy are human rights, pluralism, and rule of law. There is no scope in democracy to overlook these three principles and hence these need to be strengthened and upheld by undertaking timely legal actions against violence and terrorism, safeguarding human rights and other fundamental democratic values and effectively addressing the causes of violence and terrorism enacting democratic laws. The democratic state and the governments with state machineries are there to ensure fundamental rights of the people, not of those who violate those rights.
Consensus is an integral part of democratic decision making. However, such consensus must not mean compromising with terror, violence and anti-human acts of the forces that undermine people’s fundamental rights, including right to life and dignity. There cannot be agreement regarding questions of truth and morality, and certainly of ethics. When antagonism goes beyond humane norms and values, the question of consensus, compromise and agreement with that antagonism even in democracy becomes null and void. Democracy has gained this strength from its own mandate of defending the rights of the people.
A democratic regime must not be contemptuous when it concerns the rights of the citizens of their lives. Democratic regime must use all strengths inherent to it through democratic norms and values to prevent attacks on the innocent people, hostilities and violence created by organized anti-democratic forces to undermine and destroy democracy. Hesitations in bringing the planners, designers and the implementers of anti-people acts would not strengthen democracy and not serve wise purposes of people’s power.
Democracy is rule of the people. The term has been defined by the philosophers, social scientists and statesmen at various stages of social development in different manners from different perspectives. However, the fundamentals of democracy, expressed in its inalienable association with the rights and participation of the people have remained the same. ‘Demos’ (people) and ‘Kratos'(power) the two absolute components of democracy could never be taken off from democracy.
Democracy has voyaged a long way to take current shape. Contemporary world witnesses democracy of different types and natures. The differentiations of democracy globally by the social analysts are based on the level of functionality of people’s power, rule of law, participation, human rights and many other aspects. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index based on electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, political participation, political culture and functioning of the government is one of the documents that provides notion about the state of democracy worldwide. The 2014 Index of EIU as in the previous six indices since 2006 has categorized four regime types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. Despite some methodological deficiencies, the conclusions of EIU Democracy Index are indicative of the state of global democratic and political environment, of which most important is that a large proportion of countries and population in the world still remains under authoritarian regimes. In 2014, 37.6 percent of the world population residing in 52 countries was under authoritarian regimes, while only 12.5 percent of them enjoyed full democracy living in 24 countries mainly of Europe, North America and Australia. Uruguay, Mauritius, Japan, South Korea and Costa Rica are the exceptions in this group. Around 36 percent of the global population residing overwhelmingly in the ‘Third World’ countriesis under ‘Flawed Democracies’. Democracy in India has been categorized by the EIU as ‘Flawed Democracy’. Bangladesh categorized by the EIU as a hybrid regime (which is questionable) ranks above all other countries in South Asia except India. This reference of EIU understandably is not to justify fully the conclusions of the mentioned reports. However, the politicians, social scientists, human rights organizations and the people of the world need to understand and recognize that democracy has not appeared overnight, and that the ‘rule of the people’ has refined through practice for centuries and through active involvement of the people in the democratic process. More the people gained power to get involved in the decision making system, stronger became democracy and its institutions. People need to be aware of the fact that any type of authoritarianism destroys democratic institutions in the countries and serves as the exploitative instruments in the hands of the regimes, including unconstitutional power capturers. Undoubtedly, democracy in Bangladesh could achieve much higher level by EIU standards if the nation could avoid military interventions in state power after the brutal killings of 1975 and obstinate exertions by the military dictators to destroy achievements of the liberation movement and war for independence, of which democracy and secularism were the most important components. Similarly, introduction of one-party rule in 1975 (Jan) was a serious blow to the smooth functioning of democracy in Bangladesh.
Ancient Greece is considered as the birthplace of democracy that opposed absolute authoritarianism and tyranny back in 507 B.C. The limitation set by the Athenian democracy was in its definition of citizens. The democracy of Athens sanctioned voting and speaking rights of ‘all citizens’. However, women, landless and the slaves, among many others, were not considered as the citizens. This resulted in sidelining of more than 85 percent of the population of the city state from democratic participation and decision making. Poor participation of the people restricted accountability enormously and human rights were at the lowest level. Despite those deficiencies, that was a democracy of the ancient age of which mankind could not even dream at that juncture of human history.
Exact chronology of development of democracy is difficult to ascertain, although social science approves Spartan and Roman democracies as major milestones of democratic development of mankind in the ancient world. Those democracies also set similar limitations as in the Athenian democracy in defining a citizen. In Rome, the votes of the noble families had more value in terms of decision making and conducting state affairs.
During the Middle Age the world was dominated overwhelmingly by tyrannies, totalitarianisms and absolutisms. Despite this the democratic norms in limited scales were practiced in many parts of the Globe in different manners. Limited people’s participation were allowed by the kings, emperors and other rulers in India (south India and Bengal) in 1000 A.D. Other similar developments took place in some of the Slovac kingdoms, in the city states of Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Amalfi, San Marino, Veche, Pskov, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Sakai (Japan), North Caucasus, Ireland, etc. The nobles or the kings designed the norms and the level of participation of the people. People or citizen definitions were not universal, as it is in modern democracy. Most important step towards modern democracy was signing of Magna Carta in 1215 by King John that contained considerably the authority of the King of England. The Parliament’s authority was enhanced and the state of civil rights improved with the signing of this document. Notably, King John was forced to sign this document, which is indicative of the fact that the people under the umbrella of different social forces had to fight for establishing their rights throughout the history. Even after the signing of Magna Carta, it took 50 years for the people of England to have first national assembly in 1265.
The world had to wait for a long time and the mankind had long struggle before it established one of the most important cornerstones of modern democracy – the Universal Adult Franchise. UK incorporated voting rights to all eligible adult, male and female, only in 1928. In France, that right was introduced after the Second World War (1945). In Switzerland the women did not have the right to vote till 1973. In USA, the African- Americans got voting rights in 1965, implying that they did not have the right to be elected as people’s representatives till that time. According to the US constitution (Section 1, Article 2) ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.’
The voyage of democracy continues. Each democratic practice by each nation, community or society
refines democracy each day. The achievements of democracy over 2500 years or more are enormous, but the system has to proceed further with more scopes for enhancing the best principles that it has produced and nurtured since inception: equality, participation and rights.
Understanding the essence of democracy is essential for recognizing that there is no shortcut in a democratic system to go to power. There are set and well-practiced democratic rules, norms, principles and procedures that need to be followed and complied with in governing the country or intending to do that in a democratic system. Avoiding those, democracy can never be attained, sustained or strengthened. Democratic power capture is based on people’s mandate through elections. At the same time participation in the elections is also a voluntary activity. The political parties do not have any obligation to join any election what so ever. If parties do not join, that would not mean that the elections involving the remaining parties should be stopped or declared null and void. The political parties that remain outside the electoral process imposing self-embargo or disallowed by the election commission must wait for the term to be accomplished, or proceed with legal procedures. This is how justice and equality are ensured in the democratic elections. However, polls should be free, fair and widely participator to gain legitimacy.
Democracy does not allow undemocratic capture of power or bringing to power anybody or any group that do not represent the people or in other words not elected by the people. Each democratic country’s constitution provides precise guidelines of representation policy and method. The democratic forces need to follow those guidelines in all instances. It denies imposition and invites agreements. However, those agreements should follow democratic norms and must be within the democratic framework.
Democracy’s bounteousness allowing enhancement of different opinions and freedom of expression and activities very often cannot put reasonable limit to the opponents of democracy in propagating and acting against democracy and democratic values. Instead, the undemocratic forces very often act aggressively using all their legal and illegal instruments against democracy in the name of democratic rights. Chalking out a short cut to power without the consent of the people but with the help of any other force domestic or foreign is against democratic norm and must lead to devastating result for that force at the end of the day, because, the reasons for anti-establishment acts would not be clear to the people who will refrain from participating in the activities conducted by those forces.
The question thus lies in whether or not democracy shall react to the destructive activities using its administrative and legal forces. Is democracy mandated to initiate discussion with the terrorist forces in the name of democratic consensus and creation of a platform for democracy in collaboration with the anti-democratic forces that act against the security of the state, government and of the life and properties of the people?
A democratic government must understand precisely that democracy is destined for protecting the rights of the people, protecting peace and harmony in the society, ensuring people’s participation. In upholding these basic principles, democracy should function uncompromisingly.
One of the major elements that has strengthened democracy in the developed world is its ability to identify the effective manner of practicing democracy and stick to that, and the other is that the regimes in the countries of that world could be explicit about the logic of non-coexistence of democracy and violence. Terror, hostility and violence are contrary to democracy, in whatever means they may be expressed or at whatever time they may be exercised. Democracy is built on consensus with limitations set by the democratic norms themselves. Democracy is non-compromising to the acts that violate human rights, that terrorize innocent citizens and that conduct genocide. Even the propagators of terrorism and violence are brought to justice by a people’s democracy if that appears to be a real potential threat against democracy. Thus, in democracy there is no scope for making any compromise with forces that might harm exercise of democratic rights of the people. The clear principle is that one should exercise his rights to the extent that does not infringe others rights. None has the right to undermine rights of the other in the name of upholding his own right. For democracy to stand on solid footings all above principles are needed to be complied with by applying hierarchy of importance, most important being the inalienable rights of the people of their life and peaceful existence. Attempts or actions potentially dangerous for the safety or security of the people are excluded by the democratic norms and values.
Three fundamental values of democracy are human rights, pluralism, and rule of law. There is no scope in democracy to overlook these three principles and hence these need to be strengthened and upheld by undertaking timely legal actions against violence and terrorism, safeguarding human rights and other fundamental democratic values and effectively addressing the causes of violence and terrorism enacting democratic laws. The democratic state and the governments with state machineries are there to ensure fundamental rights of the people, not of those who violate those rights.
Consensus is an integral part of democratic decision making. However, such consensus must not mean compromising with terror, violence and anti-human acts of the forces that undermine people’s fundamental rights, including right to life and dignity. There cannot be agreement regarding questions of truth and morality, and certainly of ethics. When antagonism goes beyond humane norms and values, the question of consensus, compromise and agreement with that antagonism even in democracy becomes null and void. Democracy has gained this strength from its own mandate of defending the rights of the people.
A democratic regime must not be contemptuous when it concerns the rights of the citizens of their lives. Democratic regime must use all strengths inherent to it through democratic norms and values to prevent attacks on the innocent people, hostilities and violence created by organized anti-democratic forces to undermine and destroy democracy. Hesitations in bringing the planners, designers and the implementers of anti-people acts would not strengthen democracy and not serve wise purposes of people’s power.
(Zahurul Alam is Ph.D, President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC). )
