Proliferated democracy may give chance to militancy in gaining strength
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
March 26, 2009
In today´s world, the democracy stands for an atmosphere, where governments are elected by people with the mission of serving the country and the nation as well as doing everything for the betterment of the society while being completely loyal to country´s independence and sovereignty.
Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek dēmokratía, "popular government", which was coined from dêmos, "people" and krátos, "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society [citizens] have equal access to power and the second that all members [citizens] enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty [though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained]. In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient India, Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups [such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group], but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. To them, voters appear highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. For example, members of labor unions are most passionate and informed about labor policies. They will organize themselves and lobby the government to adopt policies beneficial to labor unions but not necessarily to the rest of the population. As a result, politicians are unaware of voters' actual desires.
Chicago economist, Donald Wittman, has written numerous works attempting to counter these common views of his colleagues. He argues democracy is efficient based on the premise of rational voters, competitive elections, and relatively low political transactions costs. Economist Bryan Caplan argues, while Wittman makes strong arguments for the latter two points, he cannot overcome the insurmountable evidence in favor of voter irrationality. It still remains the Achilles heel of democratic government. The problem is not mere lack of information; it is that voters badly interpret and judge the information they do have.
Furthermore, some have argued that voters may not be well educated enough to exercise their democratic right. A population with low intellect may not be capable of making correct decisions. While this view today is increasingly regarded by advocates of democracy as an attempt to maintain or revive traditional hierarchy in order to justify autocratic rule , extensions have been made to develop the argument further. One such variant of the argument is that the benefits of a specialised society may be compromised by democracy. As ordinary citizens are encouraged to take part in the political life of the country, they have the power to directly influence the outcome of government policies through the democratic procedures of voting, campaigning and the use of press. The result is that government policies may be more influenced by non-specialist opinions and thereby the effectiveness compromised, especially if a policy is very technically sophisticated and/or the general public inadequately informed. For example, there is no guarantee that those who campaign about the government's economic policies are themselves professional economists or academically competent in this particular discipline, regardless of whether they were well-educated.
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.
And, here is the beginning of my opinion in this article!
As stated above democracy is not considred to be a proper method of administration especially for developing countries, whose economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top most priorities. For exmple, Bangladesh being one of the least developed countries, precisely requires its rulers to put special emphasis on poverty alleviation as well as economic emuncipation with the ultimate goal of creating more job opportunities for the people.
Since 1991, when the democratic system was re-instated in Bangladesh, infrustructural development has been greatly cut to a minimal level. Although rule of General Hussain Muhammed Ershad is considred to be military regime or autocratic era, no one in Bangladesh will argue in accepting the fact that, major infrustructural developments took place during Ershad´s rule. Country´s economy was also being reviving from a virtual collapsed state, which was caused due to nationalization of industrial projects by the post-independence government led by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Such type of governance in today´s world is termed as people´s autocracy, or an autocratic rule committed in doing everything for the betterment of the people. If we look into all those developed and economically powerful nations in Asia, in particular, we shall see that, such tremendous economic progress was possible because of suspension of elected government system. South Korea emerged as economic giant from the era of General Park. Myanmar is making progress under military rule. Singapore is another example. Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand etc are also no exception.
Moreover, in many Asian or developing and under-developed nations, elected governments generally turn into extremely fascist or undemocratic. On the other hand, many un-elected governments ensure appreciable democracy.
In Bangladesh, democracy possibly won´t be established in real sense just by continuing the present electoral system. Political parties are extremely proliferated and lacking in democratic practices within parties. Two of the largest political parties are virtually under the dictatorial administration of two particular figures, who belong to their family dynasty. Bangladesh Nationalist Party [BNP] was forced to announce Khaleda Zia as its life-long party chief. Awami League also holds a similar notion. Critics may opine saying, if these parties are failing to establish democracy within their own party system, how they can ensure a proper democracy and rules of law in the country, only by being elected after every five years. This is surely a valid question.
On the other hand, for the sake of winning in the election, both Awami League and BNP are fashioned to form Alliances with small and minor parties. There are substantial influence of the Islamists in such alliance system. Most importantly, both BNP and Awami League has lost the charishma of winning in any election without the help of several alliance partners. This surely shows the decrease in their singular popurity as a prominent point.
BNP´s alliance is with mainly Islamists while Awami League´s alliance is with both Islamists and leftists. In both cases, whoever wins the election in Bangladesh, Islamists will remain as a major factor. And, such parties in government can never be aspired to initiate any actions in combating radical Islam, religious militancy and religious hatred.
Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek dēmokratía, "popular government", which was coined from dêmos, "people" and krátos, "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society [citizens] have equal access to power and the second that all members [citizens] enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty [though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained]. In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient India, Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups [such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group], but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. To them, voters appear highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. For example, members of labor unions are most passionate and informed about labor policies. They will organize themselves and lobby the government to adopt policies beneficial to labor unions but not necessarily to the rest of the population. As a result, politicians are unaware of voters' actual desires.
Chicago economist, Donald Wittman, has written numerous works attempting to counter these common views of his colleagues. He argues democracy is efficient based on the premise of rational voters, competitive elections, and relatively low political transactions costs. Economist Bryan Caplan argues, while Wittman makes strong arguments for the latter two points, he cannot overcome the insurmountable evidence in favor of voter irrationality. It still remains the Achilles heel of democratic government. The problem is not mere lack of information; it is that voters badly interpret and judge the information they do have.
Furthermore, some have argued that voters may not be well educated enough to exercise their democratic right. A population with low intellect may not be capable of making correct decisions. While this view today is increasingly regarded by advocates of democracy as an attempt to maintain or revive traditional hierarchy in order to justify autocratic rule , extensions have been made to develop the argument further. One such variant of the argument is that the benefits of a specialised society may be compromised by democracy. As ordinary citizens are encouraged to take part in the political life of the country, they have the power to directly influence the outcome of government policies through the democratic procedures of voting, campaigning and the use of press. The result is that government policies may be more influenced by non-specialist opinions and thereby the effectiveness compromised, especially if a policy is very technically sophisticated and/or the general public inadequately informed. For example, there is no guarantee that those who campaign about the government's economic policies are themselves professional economists or academically competent in this particular discipline, regardless of whether they were well-educated.
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.
And, here is the beginning of my opinion in this article!
As stated above democracy is not considred to be a proper method of administration especially for developing countries, whose economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top most priorities. For exmple, Bangladesh being one of the least developed countries, precisely requires its rulers to put special emphasis on poverty alleviation as well as economic emuncipation with the ultimate goal of creating more job opportunities for the people.
Since 1991, when the democratic system was re-instated in Bangladesh, infrustructural development has been greatly cut to a minimal level. Although rule of General Hussain Muhammed Ershad is considred to be military regime or autocratic era, no one in Bangladesh will argue in accepting the fact that, major infrustructural developments took place during Ershad´s rule. Country´s economy was also being reviving from a virtual collapsed state, which was caused due to nationalization of industrial projects by the post-independence government led by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Such type of governance in today´s world is termed as people´s autocracy, or an autocratic rule committed in doing everything for the betterment of the people. If we look into all those developed and economically powerful nations in Asia, in particular, we shall see that, such tremendous economic progress was possible because of suspension of elected government system. South Korea emerged as economic giant from the era of General Park. Myanmar is making progress under military rule. Singapore is another example. Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand etc are also no exception.
Moreover, in many Asian or developing and under-developed nations, elected governments generally turn into extremely fascist or undemocratic. On the other hand, many un-elected governments ensure appreciable democracy.
In Bangladesh, democracy possibly won´t be established in real sense just by continuing the present electoral system. Political parties are extremely proliferated and lacking in democratic practices within parties. Two of the largest political parties are virtually under the dictatorial administration of two particular figures, who belong to their family dynasty. Bangladesh Nationalist Party [BNP] was forced to announce Khaleda Zia as its life-long party chief. Awami League also holds a similar notion. Critics may opine saying, if these parties are failing to establish democracy within their own party system, how they can ensure a proper democracy and rules of law in the country, only by being elected after every five years. This is surely a valid question.
On the other hand, for the sake of winning in the election, both Awami League and BNP are fashioned to form Alliances with small and minor parties. There are substantial influence of the Islamists in such alliance system. Most importantly, both BNP and Awami League has lost the charishma of winning in any election without the help of several alliance partners. This surely shows the decrease in their singular popurity as a prominent point.
BNP´s alliance is with mainly Islamists while Awami League´s alliance is with both Islamists and leftists. In both cases, whoever wins the election in Bangladesh, Islamists will remain as a major factor. And, such parties in government can never be aspired to initiate any actions in combating radical Islam, religious militancy and religious hatred.