Are guns more democratic? January 13, 2015 12:02 am·0 Comments by Abdul Mannan The bone of contention of our liberation war was to get rid of economic disparity and oppression, martial law, all undemocratic acts inclusive of minority rule over the majority of the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and injustice in every corner of society, etc. The consolidation of power was forged into the then centre — the capital — because of the power that came from gun barrels, the location of the capital and a powerful civil bureaucracy in favour of West Pakistan. People at length and breadth, excluding some anti-democratic groups, fought the liberation war on their own with great hopes to achieve our liberation and, in due course, do away with the discrimination against people who till that time suffered heavily at the hands of the west wing of the then Pakistan. Our brave boys and people fought the liberation war and liberated our beloved land in an incredible span of only nine months against all odds. After having gone through all the suffering, we finally achieved our liberation. The question of our liberation at its best is ‘yes’ but democracy at its worst is ‘no’. Powerful guns still fight against good people. Whether with power or without, we tend to fathom democracy through the use of guns and yet we do not hesitate to provide lip service in the name of democracy whereas guns are used at random with lame excuses. The following issues have been chosen to highlight the in-depth meaning of the whole gamut of issues: (1) Democracy means not only the liberation of a country. It also does mean, among others, the rule of law, free voting, a balanced economic development, most neutral judiciary, accountability and transparency, corruption-free society, adherence to the constitution, politics of inclusiveness, etc. If we believe and start exercising the concept that ‘guns are more democratic’, democracy will start recoiling. A stark example is the fourth amendment to the constitution introduced in 1975 having imposed a one-party rule. (2) Contrarily, the fifth amendment to our constitution introduced a multi-party rule in place of the one-party rule. (a) It was rationalised and democratised more through the formation of the supreme judicial council under Article 96 from that of the 1972 constitution where power was vested in the parliament through Article 96. (b) To amend certain articles of the constitution, Article 142 was incorporated with ‘referendum’ for the empowerment of people. What is said above can be capitulated as ‘[d]emocracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few’, as George Bernard Shaw said. Recent utterances by an adviser to the government that anyone from Chhatra League, of the ruling party, taking the public service examinations would be given a preference are sufficient to prove corruption, favouritism and politicisation. (3) Were elections to the 10th parliament held on January 5, 2014 fair and lawful? Voter-less (only a handful of voters), candidate-less (154 seats going uncontested) unmaintainable elections fell short of all ethical standards. Although the present government said before the elections that the elections were being held in the interest of constitutional consistency and continuity, after the elections, all the promises fell flat, remaining only as political gimmick. ‘Before election politicians shake your hands and after election they shake your body’ — so says an old adage. In the case of elections to the sixth parliament, the then prime minister Khaleda Zia said similar constitutional requirement and elections for the seventh parliament were held shortly. An American adage says, ‘If you fool me for the first time you are to blame and if you fool me for the second time I am to blame.’ Bearing this in mind, the government must now shoulder the full responsibility for not honouring its own commitment to holding the next elections shortly after the January 5 elections. There are two great sayings: ‘There is no act which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people’ (Adam Smith) and ‘The art of government is the organisation of idolatry’ (George Bernard Shaw). Well, the two quotes show where does our democracy stand for the government is now obsessed with prospects and idolatry around it by vested interests that have perhaps mesmerised the government in playing the political game, however undemocratic. Referendum Referendum was introduced through the fifth amendment to the constitution giving power to people whereas its repeal was incorporated by the fifteenth amendment to the constitution. Similarly, the issue of the caretaker government under Chapter II A of the constitution was introduced for fair and free elections but the fifteenth amendment to the constitution prompted by the judgement of the Supreme Court on the thirteenth amendment repealed the provision of the fifth amendment. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court — the judiciary — can advise the government — the executive Branch — to go for a repeal and may not at its best repeal it itself; and the government can pass it but some articles — Article 142, for example — which require a referendum, without which any enactment will remain ultra vires the constitution. Contrarily, processions, human chains, pickets have been sent off the streets by charging at them with truncheons, firing teargas shells, filing cases, using arrest and so on — not by any political means but by the obedient segment of the police. The state machinery has thus home-grown anarchism which in turn has aggravated the situation. What Shaw has said is— ‘Anarchism is a game at which police can beat you — therefore holds good. Nostalgic grasp of the past The two major political parties are obsessed with the legacy, raising question as to who is the father of the nation and who formally declared the armed war of liberation and independence and first took over the administration acting as president. Arguments for and against both the propositions are immaterial because history knows it better and history never fails in such revelation of the truth. What surprises us most is that why we all are fighting for this. We have forgotten Shakespeare: ‘He that dies pays all debts.’ One dies only once as history is written only once. The rest are all made up one way or the other. Obviously, the truth lies in the following: (a) who was acting as president from March 26, 1971 until the provisional government was formed in exile at Agartala on April 10, 1971? And (b) the provisional government formed on April 17, 1971 at Meherpur in Bangladesh was the acting government thereafter. All are crystal clear. We should rather ring out the old and ring in the new. Impeachment of judges bill (sixteenth amendment to the constitution) The 1972 constitution was democratic and rational in framing Article 96 but the same was made undemocratic in the fourth amendment to the constitution and at the day’s end the fifth amendment to the constitution made Article 96, through the incorporation of the supreme judicial council, more rational than that of the 1972 constitution. Who cares for rationalisation and democratisation? The present government by the sixteenth amendment to the constitution made Article 96 the most illogical and politicised one, reposing such power in the parliament. The caretaker government system was repealed because the Supreme Court so advised. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court did opt for two elections — the tenth and the eleventh parliament — under the provision of the caretaker government system and the government abided by partially the Supreme Court’s verdict but repealed the relevant portion of the verdict on the caretaker government for prospective continuation. The sixteenth amendment was also passed in the parliament although the Supreme Court advocated the maintenance of Article 96 virtually as that of fifth amendment. The government could not oblige the Supreme Court this time. The repeal of the caretaker government system and the enactment of the provision for the impeachment of judges adopted by the government on the pretext of propitious political advantage, although based on the two opposite views, to take advantage for the party in power through the parliament amount to ‘pick-and-choose’ or ‘dress-as-you-like’ games. Finally, where do we end up now? Do we follow the ill-conceived concept of democracy — guns are more democratic? We know what Shakespeare said: ‘Murder most foul, as in the best it is; But this most foul, strange and unnatural’. Let us be most natural and introduce a democracy in its truest form as far as possible. We need to discard and disregard the notion of ‘guns are more democratic’ — power comes from the barrel of guns (muscle power) and that from the barrel of oil (petrodollar, ie money). May be it is a far cry. But this far cry may thaw the ice — the sooner, the better. Abdul Mannan is a former minister of the state for civil aviation and tourism and textiles.
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 03:50:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015