Democracy in India may be flawed on many accounts but it survives despite being sandwiched by two countries, Bangladesh to its east and Pakistan to its left, that are perfecting a new form of silencing dissent by dispatching the principal critics to distant shores apparently without inviting opprobrium from the sole leader of the ‘free’ world. The politics of exile in these two countries is blessed by their powerful patrons overseas, who are otherwise ever eager to dispatch their armies and fighter planes to any part of the world they perceive as groaning under dictatorship of an unfriendly ruler.
And it will remain a bit of a mystery how or why the exiled leaders, accused of amassing ill-gotten wealth and other crimes, are easily accepted as honoured guests and allowed to live comfortably with the same ill-gotten wealth.
Is it a kind of a new world order in which certain people accused of serious crimes face extradition proceedings while some others can live in the country of their exile without any hitch?
The powerful champions of democracy do not believe in applying a single criterion to define democracy but bemoan its absence in much of the world. One universally accepted definition of democracy used to be acceptance of a political system that permits dissent and criticism of the rulers of the day. It also meant freedom for the critics to propagate their views and holding of multi-party but free and fair elections at regular intervals. The rulers on their part were expected to observe the norms laid down in the constitution.
Textbook politics would also tell you that democracy is not synonymous with uniformed rulers or prolonged imposition of Emergency. But real politics being different from bookish definitions, nothing can be wrong as long as the country and its rulers agree to play ball with the leaders of the powerful West. Small wonder then democracy remains elusive in many parts of the world.
Democracy is less important than the interests of the powerful nations. A clever ruler able to ingratiate himself with these nations can survive by projecting himself as the ‘last hope’ and the only wall between order and the mayhem of terror. Democracy can also be relegated to the back rows when spin doctors tell you that people prefer military rule to the reign of corrupt, depraved and eternally quarrelling politicians.
An elected government in Pakistan was thrown out by its army chief apparently for no reason other than the fact that the prime minister of the country had not allowed him a free run in continuing with his adventure against India. The army chief installed himself in power but promptly sent the deposed prime minister into exile in Saudi Arabia. He then contrived to legitimise his appointment as the president of the country by seeking a one-time exception to a constitutional provision that barred him from donning his uniform while retaining the post of the president. Now he is exploring other equally ingenuous ways to get an extension in his five-year term without having to shed his uniform.
Initially the hurdle in his attempt for a second term was seen as coming from another former prime minister. That problem was taken care of by slapping a slew of corruption charges against that worthy and her spouse. When that did not seem reassuring enough, the duo was exiled. By a strange turn of quirky events, that exile order is being annulled after striking a ‘deal’ that would see no opposition from the Begum ex-prime minister to the president fulfilling his ambition for a second term.
The saga of exile of the original ‘Begums’ of sub-continental politics, Shaikh Hasina Wajed and Khaleda Zia, both former prime ministers of Bangladesh, is somewhat different. The first one to receive the exile notice was Khaleda Zia whose sons were arrested by the military-backed ‘caretaker’ government of Bangladesh on corruption charges. After making it appear that the noose was getting closer to Khaleda Zia herself she was offered the option of escaping trouble by agreeing to fly to Saudi Arabia with her sons and their families for a long stay. Saudi Arabia is in danger of being labelled the dumping ground of unwanted politicians.
The other Begum from Bangladesh, Shaikh Hasina Wajed, found herself in a peculiar position. She was already abroad when the rulers in Dhaka felt the need to keep her out of the country. This was done by throwing serious criminal charges (murder) against her that could result in her arrest the moment she returned to the country. Then less subtle hints were thrown that she should ‘volunteer’ to stay in exile. She, of course, rejected the charges against her and expressed her determination to return to ‘her people’ who see her as ‘the daughter of the father of the nation.’ The ‘daughter’ cannot come back to her ‘father’s’ nation but if she does she will not be able to function freely—no voice of the opposition.
That makes it very clear that democracy is going to be on a long leave in Bangladesh. The earliest it can return, so say some pundits, is the end of 2008 when the election commission will presumably be ready with updated voters’ lists. But the preparedness of the election commission is not going to be the principal factor. In any case both the real power behind the present government namely the men in uniform, as well as the civilians who are the face of the government would find in time to come some pressing reasons to postpone the comeback of democracy.
The Bangladesh army chief said his country will have to reinvent a system of governance with new leadership at all levels, leading some to suspect that he too may be entertaining some political ambitions. There is no doubt that in the coming months the people will be made to believe that the army is the lesser of the two (the other being politicians) evils and hence there is need for a longer dose of its rule.
Pundits who think the proxy military rule in Bangladesh will be short say that a longer stint of army rule will harm the country’s standing at the United Nations. This may disrupt the constant flow of Bangladesh contingents on various UN peacekeeping missions, a lucrative source of money.
Of course, this line of reasoning does not take into account the fact that Washington can influence the UN view on the state of democracy (or its absence) in a country. And the proxy rule of the army in Dhaka has begun well by executing six radical Islamists, indicating to the US that it wants to reverse the previous government’s dangerous flirtations with the religious extremists.
The military in Pakistan has likewise managed to prevent George W. Bush from entertaining even the remotest idea of pushing Musharraf towards full restoration of democracy. Bush keeps repeating the myth that remove Musharraf only if you want to see Pakistan metamorphose itself into a full-blown terrorist state.
So what if the policy of ‘enlightened moderation’ Musharraf has seen the number of religious fanatics in his country grow many-fold. These viciously anti-American elements are becoming powerful in large parts of the country outside the lawless borderlands of Pakistan which had witnessed the birth of the Taliban in the 1980s. Is that worrying?
No, it only lends more credence to the US belief that Musharraf with his uniform is preferable to democracy and rule by civilians in Pakistan. The policy of exile only helps Musharraf execute his US-approved plan to stay in office. It seems the policy exile jells with democracy!
Ditto seems to be the case in Bangladesh too. No need for any lingering doubts since the proxy rulers in Dhaka have taken a leaf from the Islamabad textbook and have started propping up the jihadi elements as their safety belt even as the official campaign against the militants goes in full steam and in full media view.
Printer-Friendly Version
