Furthermore, over the years a gross inequality between the rich and poor within the country has characterised the community. It is reported that the richest 10% per cent of the population controls, according to the latest Bangladesh Economic Survey (2003), 40.72% per cent of national income while the poorest 10% per cent of the population has access only to 1.84% per cent of national income. I am tempted to quote what the 19th century French political writer Alexis De Tocqueville said: " In the US, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition of people…this quality of condition is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived."

Inequality of income is an outcome of the prevailing economic system where disproportionate national wealth is being allowed to concentrate in a few, through "market-economy" based on unbridled capitalism. It seems that poor people have been regarded as a separate entity and not a part of an inter-connected community and policies have overlooked suffering and misery of majority of the population. Placing too much confidence in the "trickle-down-effect" of economic growth, the planners appear to ignore in implementing a fairer distribution of national income among people. The dynamics in moving towards inequality in society appear to be steadily becoming stronger.

Inequality within the country has severely impacted on Bangladeshi society. The law and order situation coupled with increasing deprivation in the poorer section of the community has produced alarming signs of social stress. For other sections of the community despite the attempts of the law-enforcing agencies to curb violence in society, there appears to be no relief. The level of insecurity in the community is amply demonstrated by the headlines of daily newspapers.

It seems that there has been a perceptible gap between election promises and actual performance among political parties while they are in power. This appears to have created a credibility gap between the existing major political parties and the electorate. A large section of community is disenchanted with political slogans and manifestos.

On October 7, 2003, Germany-based Transparency International ranked Bangladesh as the "most corrupt country" out of 133 countries in 2003 and the country maintained this position in 2001 and 2002. Many may differ on the criteria in assessing corruption in the country. However, corruption and abuse of power hit hard common people when they seek assistance from governmental service providers for basic services. It is again the perception that counts in international arena including among the international institutions that provide aid/loans to Bangladesh.

For the last 12 years, we have been fortunate enough to have had democratically elected governments and we witnessed peaceful transfer of power in 1996 and 2001 through elections conducted by non-party Care-Taker governments. However policies of elected governments have not led to greater equity and social cohesion including removal of gender equality in society.

Democracy and pitfall

Democratic traditions are created in the light of history, national character, state of economic development and the diversity or homogeneity of population. The bottom line of democracy lies in the political institutions being "the representative of the entire people" as an English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill (1806-73) viewed it. Democracy is a set of values determined with the consensus of the community. Tolerance and compromise are two essential attributes of democracy.

Democracy is the rule of the majority where the minority has the right to criticize the ruling party or coalition of parties. However, tyrannical majority and recalcitrant minority, according to an eminent constitutional expert Sir Ivor Jennings, are the enemies of democracy.

Bengalis are proud of their independent spirit and even during the British colonial rule the first phase of independence movement started from Bengal in 1857. In Bangladesh there are no feudal lords and there is no bar to social mobility from one ladder to the other. History has shown that Bengalis in general do not tolerate authoritarianism and believe in equality of rights. All these attributes of Bengali character were assumed to be the right environment to promote democracy in the country.

However it appears that the above assumption has been misplaced. Parliamentary democracy has not been working well in the country. This form of government is nothing new and had been in vogue since 1947 in this land, which now constitutes Bangladesh. Where did it go wrong? It seems democratic traditions have failed because of the following reasons among others:

First, political parties are not democratic in their internal structure. There is hardly any genuine process for elections within the party by rank and file members. The role of many of the members of the party has been marginalised and as a result they feel disgruntled within the party. There is a view that political parties have converted into simply leader-based party. When the leader is discredited or disappears, the party is either dismantled or split into several factional parties. For instance, there are three Jatiya Parties (JP) in the country.

Second, party stalwarts do not encourage criticisms, even positive. In the absence of any meaningful internal democracy within the party, the so-called "survival" politics seems to have become the end game of many of the Members of Parliament. It is relevant to this day what Edmund Burke said in 1774 to his Bristol constituency: " What sort of reason is that, in which, the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear arguments?"

Third, an unhealthy political environment and high election- costs appear to discourage many people, in particular, professional people, to get involved in politics. One needs to spend a few crores (millions) in elections and many people cannot afford it. It is reported that majority of MPs are drawn from business section because only they can afford to run elections with "big money". The lack of diversity of professions and callings among MPs appears to have a negative impact on parliamentary democracy.

Fourth, parliamentary system of government has been termed by the British MP Tony Benn in 1980 as a "Prime Ministerial" government. The vastly growing powers of the executive branch of the state have diminished the functions and stature of Parliament. In addition to it, it appears that most MPs do not seem to be empowered to take policy decisions. It is the party stalwarts who often make decisions and MPs routinely abide by them.

Finally, democracy cannot thrive in communities, majority of whom are poor. Poverty constitutes a great threat to democracy. Socio-economic conditions must be congenial to promotion of democracy. Economic and social policies are like breathing in and out and they go together. Democracy has to be inclusive and participatory in character. Mere holding of periodic elections is not democracy.

One fact that merits special attention is that free media is a sine qua non for democracy. Media plays a pivotal role in appraising the electorate with dispassionate views on important national issues and exposes abuse or misuse of power of authority. Media is like a "mirror" where the government of the day can see its performance. Appropriate legislation such as Freedom of Information Act will energise media to undertake investigative reports on lack of transparency and accountability of decisions or actions of the government of the day.

Good Governance: What does it mean?

Democracy is inter-linked with good governance. It brings to mind what the 18th century English poet Alexander Pope wrote:

"About forms of government let fools contest;

The government best administered is the best."

In the above couplet, I would argue that the poet captured the essence of good governance. Good governance is an umbrella concept. Good governance consists of certain well-known attributes, such as transparency, accountability, efficiency and prompt delivery of governmental basic services without being subject to corrupt means or abuse of power. As the Sun cannot be separated from sunshine, so also, the agencies of government or local authorities cannot be separated from good governance.

The next question arises: how do we judge good governance? Indian political leader Karan Singh ( son of the former Maharaja of Kashmir) once said that one simple way to judge good governance in the country was whether a young woman would be able to walk or travel alone after dark from one end of the city /town to other without being harassed or insulted or molested. Although it may not be an accurate test, what he meant was that the existence of personal security of a person in all situations was one of the crucial tests of good governance.

Another criterion for good governance is that poorest of the poor enjoy the barest acceptable standard of education, shelter, primary health care and nutrition. Furthermore sound economic policy is a part of good governance. It means the maximum utilization of material and human resources in the country so as to ensure a fairer distribution of national income among all sections of people. The wealth of the nation is distributed in such a way that social justice is met through wide and equitable taxation base.

It is reported that some 325 persons from the richest 10% per cent have defaulted bank loans in the amount of Tk.10,126 crore that constitute one fifth of our national budget of for the 2003-04 financial year and if it is true, it reflects badly on corporate governance that in turn passes the "buck" to government of the day. Bad governance is to be viewed as an aberration of standard norms and unethical conduct of agencies and authorities of governments.

Democracy and good governance are two sides of the same coin. To achieve the goal leaders and people of the country need self-discipline, political ethics and strong will. It is no use blaming only the government of the day. Government is not something that is imposed on us by an external power and it reflects by and large choice of the population.

To strengthen democracy is not only the responsibility of the State, but also of all citizens. Article 21.1 of the Bangladesh Constitution stipulates: " It is the duty of every citizen to observe the Constitution and the laws, to maintain discipline, to perform public duties and protect public property." We must ask ourselves: Do we abide by this constitutional obligation in our everyday life?

All powers belong to people and governments exercise powers on behalf of people (Article 7 of the Constitution). People have the power to elect or reject a government after every five years. People of all sections must be conscious of their responsibility to ensure that democratic traditions are promoted and evils of endemic corruption, patronisation, and nepotism are eliminated. Only then we will be able to be on the path of progress and prosperity.

The author is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.