News Analysis: The sins of civil society
Syed Badrul Ahsan
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina feels that some people, using the banner of civil society, have been weakening the foundations of democracy.
If that is true, it is surely a grievous fault on the part of these people and they should pay the price for such transgressions.
The head of government also has reasons to believe that against the background of 19 coups and abortive coups in the nation's forty-year history, it is important that all pro-liberation and democratic forces remain in a state of alert where the future is concerned. We could not agree more with the prime minister, for she voices precisely the sentiments that have been growing in us on this score.
With all this gigantic effort expended by local and international forces towards questioning the trial of the 1971 war criminals, it is indeed for all of us to bear in mind the truth that we must not lose the woods for the trees. The prime minister has also informed us, in unmistakable terms, that civil society members may be privy to high education, but their acceptability among the masses is low. So what is the point here?
Let us now move on, for the very good reason that we must now enlighten the nation on the many sins our civil society has, in very civil manner, putatively been committing in these past many years. Let us all be patient as we go through an enumeration of the sins. Once that is done, let us open the floor to the people of this country.
It is a people's republic we inhabit. Wherefore should we then not leave the ultimate judgement on the sinister activities of civil society in the hands of the millions who struggle, from sunup to sundown, to ensure a decent living for themselves? But, no more obfuscation, no more of bantering. Let us go through our list of civil society sins.
Begin with the recent dramatic conclusion of the Narayanganj City Corporation elections. Bangladesh's civil society clearly rooted for Selina Hayat Ivy. And it did that because it believed that her probity, as against the various and varied allegations of wrongdoing levelled at her rival, was an absolute necessity in these perilous times and that therefore her electoral triumph would send out a message of hope to the rest of the country.
Sheikh Hasina, in the pre-ballot process, ought to have cheered us through making her support clear for Ivy. Now, did civil society take a wrong step here?
Members of civil society have been equally harsh on the ruling Awami League and the opposition BNP. They have unambiguously demanded that the opposition, as a mark of its adherence to democratic principles, return to the Jatiya Sangsad and thereby convince the country that it means business. The opposition, of course, has in its questionable wisdom chosen the path of street agitation. Which begs the question: why is civil society enlightening the opposition on a theme the latter ought to have embraced on its own?
And yet civil society gets flak, and not just from the prime minister.
The prime ministerial reference to nineteen coups (there were only four successful ones in point of fact, the others being abortive) reminds one of the heartbreak people of the country have gone through for reasons not of their making. Neither can one pin the blame on civil society for these blatant demonstrations of illegitimate military rule. If civil society is to be held responsible for any transgression, it is over its conviction that unless the major political parties are able to push aside their past and move on to a cooperative future between themselves, it will be the forces of darkness perennially waiting in the wings who will stand to benefit from this unmitigated chaos.
Civil society is the messenger here. Must the prime minister or anyone else shoot it down because it serves warning of what might be if our politicians do not look beyond narrow partisan interests?
The rapidity with which the fifteenth amendment to the constitution was passed and the caretaker system of government done away with has convinced us yet once more of the inherent dangers in a party or government enjoying a two-thirds or three-fourths majority in parliament. Exercising such a majority is all right, but going to the people on such critical issues as abolishing the caretaker system is infinitely better. That was, and is, the view of civil society.
Must that emphasis on a strengthening of democratic principles be held against it?
Civil society brings citizens across the political divide together. And across that divide has risen the demand, inexorably and inevitably, for a strong, independent local government system in the country. The emasculation of the system through the deliberate actions of the ruling AL has stymied, for now, the chances of democracy flowering out into its full form.
When civil society argues in defence of substantive local government, is it really undermining democracy?
With huge swathes of public opinion not taking kindly to the manner of the Dhaka City Corporation split, civil society clearly had a stake here. It spoke for all of us, with all our concerns about the ramifications of the move.
If now civil society is guilty of striking at democracy, what penalties must be imposed on it?
It is the public interest which must take precedence over everything else. And public interest dictates that the Election Commission be peopled by men of integrity and conviction, that the Anti-Corruption Commission have full authority to prosecute everyone even remotely suspected of having committed wrongdoing -- beginning right at the top of the pyramid.
If civil society is opposed to a change in the route of the proposed metro rail, it is for the government to put the views of any government agency aside and show respect to public opinion.
And that is all, ladies and gentlemen.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=213104
__._,_.___