This definition can be found both in the writings of American philosopher John Rawls and in the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. It is widely agreed that the full realization of the goals of democracy may be utopian and as long as nations make a serious attempt to realize these goals they can be called democratic. In other words, the countries of the world can be placed on a democratic scale where some would score high points and others would score low.

There is a consensus among researchers that democracy is on the march. More and more people and surely, more countries can now be called democratic. Huntington called it the "third wave" of democracy. Yet what is not often publicized is that in recent years, several studies have shown that with the expansion of democracy, violence has also become widespread. Democracy has also been used as a slogan by disingenuous politicians. When George Bush uses the argument of spreading democracy he diminishes the value of democracy.

There are many views on democracy in the world today. To make matters simple let's classify the various views on democracy into four types. First view holds that democracy is the best form of government and therefore it is sacred. No one should criticize democracy. Second view says democracy is the best of the worst forms of government, a view that is often attributed to former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The third view suggests that democracy is different in different countries, democracy with a Chinese flavour as the Chinese leaders would like to call it. Some Asian intellectuals used to espouse what they called, unsurprisingly, "Asian democracy" or "illiberal democracy." This view accepts democracy as a goal but keeps arguing that because of differences in culture there cannot be just one form of democracy. The fourth view, disagrees with the view that democracy is an ideal form of government. This view was held by Singapore's former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who once remarked that discipline is more important than democracy. And he made that remark in the Philippines where people like Bangladeshis love democracy often to a fault.

In Bangladesh a popular view posits: "democracy is a practice." As if it is an exotic plant that needs care and nurturing before it bears fruits. Mutual respect for each other, decency, integrity, and tolerance are the ingredients (soil, water, fertilizer, etc) that will nurture it. This view does not criticize the idea of democracy but takes an evolutionary view that with time democracy will deepen. The gangster-dominated democracy based on lack of goodwill and mutual tolerance and respect between leaders will wear off with time.

There are examples of this in the local politics of Chicago which in the 1930s and 40s was dominated by "mastans" or what in Bangladesh is now called "godfathers." With time the godfathers in Chicago have been elbowed out by decent and reasonable politicians. Putnam, a Harvard Political Scientist, found a similar pattern in his study of Italian politics, especially in the south, which in the 1970s was dominated by mafia-linked leaders where leaders displayed high degree of mutual intolerance, suspicion, and ill-will. After two decades, the situation improved remarkably. So the "time will fix the problem" is a reasonable position to take.

But let me alert you that a do-nothing "let history take it course" approach will not lead to automatic improvement in the quality of democracy in Bangladesh. International organizations talk about unbridled corruption in Bangladesh which sometimes makes many patriotic Bangladeshis unhappy. What should be looked at with more interest is the corruption of our institutions. And here we find plenty of examples. Let's look at the question of independence of judiciary. I think the issue is more than just independence; it is about the integrity of judiciary. The integrity of judiciary has been undermined by arbitrary appointments and interference by politicians who do not value the importance of rule of law.

One of the preconditions for the functioning democracy is separation of power. The undermining of judiciary has been a crime against the nation. A great institution that functioned reasonably well has been corrupted. It was the trust in the integrity of judiciary that made the framers of care taker government to propose that the most recently retired chief justice of Supreme Court should become the head of the CTG. In principle the idea of caretaker government was a great and innovative idea so much so that we wanted to export it to US after George Bush's dubious first election. Now this great innovation has been corrupted by the tunnel-visioned politicians whose only horizon is winning the next election by any means even if that means destroying the vital institutions of the country. It is not just a matter of reform; you cannot ask people who have destroyed an institution to amend it.

How you can talk about rule of law when you see law is being abused everyday. Is there any law in the law book that says opposition politicians can be beaten in full public view? Where are the laws that say you can arrest someone on suspicion of wrong-doing and have him killed in "cross-fire." Here the lack of criticism from the outside world is not a sign of approval but indifference in disgust. Which laws allow carrying out murders, rapes, and intimidation of the Hindus prior to and in the aftermath of elections?

Some writers often proudly present the case that Bangladesh has sustained peaceful change of governments through three reasonably fair national elections since 1991. That is surely a good sign. But I don't think the people involved in politics over time have become more tolerant and decent. Let's not forget that the electoral process itself has been corrupted in the process.

Democracy is not just about holding elections. Do not forget that Hitler (and why forget George Bush's victory in 2000 and 2004) who rose to position of power via democratic elections. A respected and now retired Awami League leader (yes, Awami League) once told me that our Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has never lost an election in her life, an achievement unrivalled by even Mr. Nehru or any other politician in the sub-continent. My reply was that popularity does not mean quality. Democracy is more than majoritarian rule. Populism often feeds authoritarianism and fascism.

When I see a serving Prime Minister spending tax-payers money, using official helicopter and security flying around the country giving meaningless, propagandist harangues to the tumultuous and huge audience, I am not impressed by the prospect of deepening democracy. Please tell me which democratic country will allow that.

The US is often presented as an example of a bad democracy and even a failed or dysfunctional state, (sounds familiar) in the words of Noam Chomsky. So a comparison between Bangladesh and US may not be too far-fetched. Both countries have popularly elected incompetent leaders. The recent report brought out by the National Intelligence Estimate in US criticized Bush's claim that Iraq war made the world safer. The report suggested that Iraq has been the breeding ground of new terror, a view that seriously undermines President Bush's claims of gain in Iraq. Imagine a government department criticizing the Khaleda Zia government on her handling the crime situation or inability to provide electricity. Ok, so ours is even worse than the American democracy.

Bangladesh cannot be compared with other countries. We are unique and we cannot use another standard, we are our own standard. How many opposition politicians were murdered during the Awami League government? Just by using the number of political murders and lack of credible investigations it can be concluded that democracy for Bangladesh has been a road to perdition.

But why blame democracy and not BNP? BNP should be soundly criticized and voted out to rescue democracy for Bangladesh. Yes, that is one opinion. I won't be surprised if that opinion gains ground in the coming months. But will that change of government solve the problem? The problem may be deeper and lies in the very nature of democracy Bangladesh-style which has become diseased and corrupt. The corruption of democracy in Bangladesh which I have called "authoritarian democracy" has been the greatest tragedy for the people of Bangladesh who sacrificed so much to achieve a democratic Bangladesh.

If we value democracy, we should save it from those politicians who nurture a culture of indecency, intimidation and corrupt the entire nation through lying, cheating, and dishonesty. Democracy demands a political culture based on the values of truth, fairness, and justice. Democratic values should be institutionalized in the political system that secures the rights of the citizens regardless of class, gender, religion, and party-affiliation who can live with honesty and dignity and not in fear. Let's remember what Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of America once said: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Now you good readers, tell me who fears who in Bangladesh today?

The author is a sociologist.