South Asia is in a state of crises. Everywhere you look an imbalance between the organs of government and constitutional chaos seems imminent. The institutions and state structures so necessary for democratic governance, social stability, cohesion and economic development appear to be in crises. Is this an overstatement or does ground reality confirm this hypothesis?
Let us cite some examples of this dysfunction. Daily life in Bangladesh is not easy. The political antagonisms and tussle between prime minister Sheikh Hasina and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led by Khaleda Zia have increased enormously.
PM Hasina changed the constitution whereby the ruling party will be caretaker during elections, due next year. BNP wants that polls are held under a non-party caretaker government, without which they would not be credible, and has threatened boycott.
PM Hasina had appointed a war crimes court to bring to book people who had collaborated with the genocide during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. This tribunal indicted some leading members of the BNP and its close ally, Jamaat-e-Islami. This has polarised Bangla society, with a struggle between secular and fundamentalist forces.
In Nepal, elections for a new Constituent Assembly are scheduled for November 19, after the last CA failed to make a constitution and was caught in inter-party political wrangles for years. Meanwhile, violence has increased as the 33-party alliance led by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist led by Mohan Baidya has been expressing all kinds of dissatisfaction against elections.
In the Maldives, a constitutional crisis is impending, because after overthrowing elected president Mohammed Nasheed, the coup enforcer, Mohamed Hassan, came in second after Nasheed secured 45 per cent of the votes, enough for a final run-off. But this was annulled by the supreme court. Now the debate over who will run the election and the country rages and swinging between forces that want democracy and fundamentalists who want it their way.
Sri Lanka held elections in the post-civil war context in the North, which were won by the main ethnic minority Tamil party, polling 84 per cent of the votes, while president Rajapakse’s party won only seven seats. The victory for the Tamil National Alliance is however, symbolic, because the root causes of the 26-year-old war remain unaddressed. Tamil lands have been further taken over by the Sri Lankan military, which military has control and power over everyday governance in the region. Human rights abuse and war crimes remain unaddressed.
In Pakistan, the very core of democratic governance — the judiciary — is lagging in delivering justice. Pakistan’s judiciary has repeatedly failed to uphold the constitution, failed to oppose Islamic law and repeal discriminatory laws that undermine fundamental rights and support fundamentalism. Now, new legislation that is modeled on India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act will be passed by the Pakistani parliament, to be used in its sensitive federal areas. Even though Pakistan had its first civilian takeover after the full completed term of its civilian government, prime minister Nawaz Sharif, like his predecessor, is bound by the army and intelligence agencies. So, the balance of power clearly favours the military and fundamentalist non-state actors.
Many such woes, visible in its smaller neighbours, get invisibilised in India because of the diversity and complexity of its politics. But here, too, institutions that need to be autonomous of the government are totally controlled by them. The rigour our constitution wanted to give and strengthen institutions has been overshadowed by specific regime and ruling party interests. The judiciary is still important but justice is so delayed that our eminent judges themselves say that they only help the violators/offenders, while the wronged have to wait for years without justice and compensation. The Indian government has refused to implement judicial reform, clearly because these delays help them most.
So, what has gone wrong with South Asia? Why has the potential for development not been taken advantage of? One clear reason is the gradual decline of institutions over the years. But who is responsible for this? Because after all, India and Pakistan did emerge from mass national movements and created constitutions. Nepal had a mass movement for democracy. Sri Lanka was also an old and tested democracy. Bangladesh had a great struggle for independence. A military dictatorship was removed in the Maldives.
A major problem, then, with all these countries was that the ruling elites, who took power on the strength of the masses, had their interests entrenched and wanted to use every means to retain power. The only way was either through military coups or distorting democratic process and capturing institutions and twisting them to suit their control. This was done by both mainstream parties and by major opposition groups. Moreover, when necessary, the politics of majoritarianism, identity, fundamentalist and communal politics was used liberally in all of South Asia. But there is a question of degrees. There was also the politics of blame game, violence and retribution. Added to that was the material gains linked with corruption. All of it has added to the short fuse of South Asian politics.
Instead of addressing some of the crises of institutional dysfunction, states are looking for trouble in other countries or targeting their own minorities and dissenters. Besides, the political class is looking for quick gains through both privatising public goods and retaining power at all costs. As such, South Asia is becoming the biggest importer of arms, has the longest unresolved conflicts in the world, among the worst health and social indicators, and is counted among the worst for exploiting its own women and other such laurels.
Despite such gloom, there are also positives. In that South Asian people have developed a sense of democratic culture, even while there are forces within that would like to destroy it. Thus, if the South Asian ruling elite wants to survive, it should look inwards into its institutional structures. Give them autonomy, transparency, open accountability and equity as well as merit-based governance. If South Asia has to survive its institutional dysfunction needs to be stopped.
No comments:
Post a Comment