Zahurul Alam :
Democracyis not gifted. It is earned and has to be nurtured and sustained. The only way of sustaining democracy is to practice it defying all odds that may encumber its voyage. Emerging democracies in the world frequently face hostile oppositions from anti-democratic forces. These forces are born, reproduced and function in a democratic society based on democracy’s benevolence expressed in its generosity to accommodate opposing political and social forces, many of which are antagonistic to the extent that those gain their strengths only to destroy democracy. This democratic freedom of hostile forces ultimately bounces back against the very existence of democracy. And here lies the weakness of the strength of democracy.
Democratic governance ensures scope for equal participation of all members of the society and thereby provides opportunity to the undemocratic forces use democratic leverages to harm democracy and capture power to destroy democracy. Thus democracy plants within itself the key to its death. Now, it is also a matter of democratic forces in the society to identify the undemocratic acts and the forces behind those and confront terrorism in whatever forms that may exist. It would be naïve to conclude that violence and terrorism in a democracy are a matter of emergence and strengthening of marginalized interests groups in pursuit of society’s attention. The current global reality suggests that mass scale systematic political terrorism or non-political violence under the mask of politics or political movement is built on strong intention to impose undemocratic system in place of democracy. The essential pre-requisite and pre-condition of political movement – people’s participation and popular mobilization are absent in these destructive acts, as the ultimate objective of such isolated but devastating acts is to install regime that would have minimal or no participation of the people in decision making and implementation. And hence, those are conducted against the voters, who are the catalytic agents of formation of a humane system that is not in conformity with the agenda of the anti-democratic forces functioning in democracy and taking advantages of democracy for becoming stronger each day. The general mass continues to remain as the most vulnerable victims of such violence also because their livelihoods compel them to be accessible to the terrorists. In current Bangladesh context, these activities are in majority of cases outsourced to the professional terrorists, who, in turn may appear to be the members of outlawed terrorist groups, labeled as political parties or allies of the political parties during previous regime(s).The non-political violence against the innocent people are seldom at the leadership of the constitutionally approved and democratically existing ‘political forces’, with no participation of the politicians. Thus democracy has the option either to pave way to terrorism and usher in anti-democracy or fight with equal strength against terrorism for survival. Here again lies the difficulty of lack of democracy’s ability to impose undemocratic norms to fight terrorism. The fundamental principles of democracy superficially would not allow that.
Many believe that democracy’s inherent balancing quality promotes terrorism and similar trends worldwide. Others opine exclusion of terrorism by the democratic norms would lead ultimately to the demolition of terrorism worldwide. Above may be explained by saying that democracy by itself is contrary to terrorism, it certainly excludes terrorism as a means to attain something. On the other hand democracy’s compassion provides ample scope for the anti-democratic forces to be nurtured and strengthened within democracy under the democratic mask and these forces are tackled by the democratic norms in a way that appears to be inadequate to root those out in time leading to lapse of time and enhancing their reproduction through strengthened economic bases supported by external (terrorist) forces. Further expanding the above thought, we can say that empirical evidences do not demonstrate a straight proportional relationship between democracy and terrorism. Terrorism is certainly a product of anti-democratic factors. However, once instigated that may flourish well in a democratic society based on the liberal norms of democracy. Even in most instances, terrorism expands in a much more comprehensive manner in a democratic environment if democracy fails to prevent that in time using legal and social tools. The legal instruments of democracy in most cases appear to be a weak tool as those are built on humane principles. Democracy’s strengths are in its ability to mobilize mass and confront anti-democratic challenges through mass participation. This is time consuming. Those principles are unable to challenge anti humane challenges of terrorism in short span of time. The question lies in how much time democracy gets to challenge terrorism. The logical question is whether or not any democratic force will be available in the world by the time terrorism is tackled, to practice and uphold democracy! This virtually is synonymous to promoting terrorism by democracy. May be the remedy lies in creating a different standard of handling terrorism and violence by the democratic system; and the democratic regime needs to do that based on democracy’s objective to protect interest of the majority, and protecting fundamental rights of all.
This era’s terrorism is internationalized. The confronting interest groups function in a manner that is supportive to the emergence and strengthening of terrorism. Countries preaching for democracy at the same time strive to earn from international weapon trade. Countries and organizations advocating for human rights and democracy are indulged in supporting the criminals and killers in the name of lobby and professional business. This contradictory role of the self-declared leaders of democracy and human rights instigates wars, conflicts and contradictions, spreads hatred and anti-humane attitude among the nations, communities, religions and tribes in Africa, Asia and South American and even in the West. The thirst for profit maximization of the concerned thus remains as a strong and sustainable obstacle against attempts to build peace and peaceful nations worldwide.
As regards the authoritarian regimes, those are and had always been fertile stemming grounds for terrorism. Democracy becomes excellent breeding ground of terrorism, once terrorism roots in the democratic society with the help of non-democratic elements. Those may be political parties, civil organizations or even banned terrorist groups, with good links with the external terrorist forces.
Ideally, the strength of democracy of accommodating opposing forces may to some extent reduce violence at the end of the day, provided that democracy is in a position to sustain up to that level. Strong democracies built on strong democratic institutions and strong confidence of the people in the democratic institutions and norms ultimately reduces violence by identifying the causes and through urgent actions against any terrorism that concerns the fundamental rights of the citizens. Established strong democracy with all democratic institutions in place would never compromise with the security of the citizens in whatever term that might be. No question of dialogue with the planners and implementers of criminal acts would be feasible, when a strong democratic government is in place. Such questions arise when democracy fails.
The strength of a democracy, as mentioned lies in its capacity to accommodate opposing forces, up to the level that such opposition does never harm the rights of the people. All people, irrespective of color, creed, religion, ethnicity, belief, all organizations, irrespective of their size, financial strength or agenda enjoy the freedom of exercising their rights to the extent that does not harm the rights of the others. That must be one of the fundamental principles of democracy.
(Zahurul Alam Ph.D is President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC), E-mail: [email protected])
