Prof. Ataur Rahman National University of Singapore & Dhaka University

1. Government without Governance: Assessing Implications of the disconnect between power and accountability in Bangladeshi Democracy Prof. Ataur Rahman National University of Singapore & Dhaka University

2. Introduction: conceptual framework • Electoral democracy is not enough, and borrowing from a leading scholar of democratization, I have argued that a “specter is haunting democracy. It is bad governance that serves only the interests of narrow ruling elite. –governance that is drenched in corruption, patronage, favoritism, and abuse of power” ( Larry Diamond, 2007) • there is a growing tension between the model representative government as defined by liberal democratic theory and challenge of the state in terms of providing governance to the citizens. This results in fast transformation of the concept of government focused more on the way it exercises authority and performs effectively • The pathologies of bad governance cannot be cured by ‘technical fix’ or measures of ‘democracy assistance’. They need to be treated at deeper levels of political culture in societies. This requires nothing less than revolutionary change in institutions, social norms and values, and to reinvent political leadership that is responsive and accountable to the people or citizens.

3. Bangladesh context: main arguments • reviews the transformation of governance from the vantage point of democratic values and institutions in the context of Bangladesh. It argues that democratic governance is essentially a process of steering and establishing accountability through political institutions that create links between state and society. That accountability rests on the constitutional marriage between power and responsibility – and if these two are divorced, there may be disastrousconsequences of such disconnect for democratic governance. • The traditional model of state control and accountability is of little help. Instead, we have shown in case of Bangladesh that accountability based on procedure as embodied in the Constitution does not work and has put democratic institutions in awkward position. As a result, the challenges that are faced by the state in providing governance overwhelm the government. • The institutional responses of the state to these challenges are grossly inadequate to the task requiring political leadership to be more enlightened and rise above the old mind-set especially rent-seeking and patron-client culture. • Need to reinvent governance as well as democracy even after four decades of Bangladesh’s existence as nation. To that end, the paper envisions an emergent alternative governance arrangement that may provide democratic input and social accountability in the emerging transformed democracy in Bangladesh

4. Change and challenges • The four decades of Bangladesh can be divided into two phases: the first phase spanning two decades witnessed extreme volatility in politics: violent changes of government, military intervention, bad governance and a ‘mix’ of authoritarian-democratic rule. The failings of leadership arose mainly from their inability to create a value-frame work and an appropriate state structure to administer social and economic programs. • The second phase of Bangladesh beginning from 1990 witnessed significant transformations. The successful transition of Bangladesh to a democratic system of governance was a major achievement. Changes were also visible in social and economic sectors as reflected in higher income, more employment opportunities, better education facilities, better health and nutrition. The main challenge however came from governing a turbulent polity with divisive political culture, and a political hereditary leadership that tends to exercise power without accountability

5. Governance challengein democratic era • The post 1991 democratic era in Bangladesh witnessed low ranking of the country on generally accepted indicators of governance. The World Bank (2008) and DFID (2005) Studies show that of the 209 countries, Bangladesh ranks in the bottom quartile on almost all governance indicators that include: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law and Control of Corruption. The Economist Intelligence Unit puts Bangladesh in its Democracy Index as a “hybrid regime” between a “flawed democracy” and an “ authoritarian state”. The recent perception and opinion surveys ( 2008- 2011) show declining trends in most dimensions of Democracy-Governance (DG) indicators falling between 5-10 percent in accountability and stability indicators ( W.B) • IGS State of Governance Studies ( 2006- 2009) and Governance Barometer Survey (2010) show Bangladesh’s governance situation worsening due to : lack of impartiality and trust in government institutions, patron-client culture, corruption, lack of institutional reform, lack of accountabilityand ability to deliver service • This study concentrating on tworepresentative institutions: parliament and political parties, has found that citizens are increasingly perceiving these institutions and their politicians with growing skepticism and mistrust – a trend that is becoming more pronounced in the past few years than before that cast shadow on democracy

6. Political institutions and governance • The surge of democratization has enabled political leaders to shape policy preferences and action in a more proactive manner during the past 18 years. In fact, people are increasingly expecting political leaders and political institutions to play main role in the governing process –defining collective interest and to serve as a “hub”, coordinating the actions of the state (bureaucracy) and non-state actors. Ironically, this studyhas found that citizens are increasingly perceiving the main democratic institutions: Parliament and parties, and their top political leadership – dysfunctional and not trustworthy • Although public bureaucracy in Bangladesh still plays an important role in the state system occupying strategic positions in governance (service delivery and policy implementation), their influence is on decline. The lack of clear policy role for the civil service has affected implementation as it reduces the bureaucracy’s commitment to government policy. The organization of government has become overly complex with too many agencies combined with Internal politics in the civil service have also rendered the institution vulnerable to party in power seriously degrading its quality, impartiality and performance

7. Parliamentary power and accountability • In theory, the government is accountable to the Parliament though the chain of ministerial responsibility. But in practice, the capacities and functioning of the parliament are limited by the political executives especially the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Bangladesh has opted for Westminster type parliamentary system with a rare consensus of parties in 1991. Ironically, the way the system worked in the past 18 years considerably negated the goals of parliamentary governance tradition • The main source of law is the Parliament. Unfortunately in Bangladesh, Parliament acts as the “law approving body” – not the initiator of law. The legislative process begins in the concerned ministry and ministers in consultation with their bureaucratic colleagues devise policies for presentation to the cabinet. The Prime Minister’s Office controlling the agenda of all cabinet committees largely determines the fate of any policy and law making initiative. • The minor role of the Parliament as forum either to debate policy choices or enforce the accountability of the government to the public has been witnessed in successive democratic regimes, including the current one in a more conspicuous manner. While it may be argued that many countries have witnessed the growing power of the Prime Minister or Chief Executive over the legislative branch, the symptom is perhaps most pronounced in Bangladeshi democracy. • Committee system as fulcrum of legislative power witnessed many improvements since 1991 but their functioning has been seriously hindered by the executive branch, leader of the House, opposition boycott of parliament skewed distribution of seats, and overall political environment

8. Inter-party hostility, patron-client culture and lack of democratic practice • Four major political parties form the core of democratic governance in Bangladesh since the country’s restoration of parliamentary system in 1991. But the main parties except the Jamaat-e-Islami failed to democratize their party structures and were not able to hold their leaders accountable. In fact, the main political dynamic today as in the past one and half decade of ‘democratic era’ revolved around the two major parties: Bangladesh Awami League led by its supreme leader Sheikh Hasina and Bangladesh Nationalist Party headed by Begum Khaleda Zia. • The two contending party leadership has found a stable institutional equilibrium in non-cooperation in a system of parliamentary governance where cooperation is quintessential. Parliament and parties are supposed to interact more closely in a parliamentary system than other types. But in Bangladeshi democracy, both are now embedded in undemocratic party culture and transformed into family dominated parties- internal party democracy and inter-party relations suffer as a consequence • The chief operatives in both parties are allowed to run large and extended patronage-driven toll collecting operations that are endemic and debilitating throughout the country.

9. Implications and future scenarios • The growing disconnect and alienation of political leadership from the people, and malfunctioning of the political institutions have already cast shadow on the future peaceful transition, governance and sustained development . It is in this context two scenarios can be envisaged: • Scenario – 1 : Degraded/ illiberal democracy –if we look at the pattern of democratic evolution in Bangladesh during the critical transition years: 1995-96, 2000-2001, 2005- 2006, it can be safely argued that 2012 -2013 will be an acid test for democratic governance in Bangladesh. If we make a trend analysis of governance record of the current Awami League government particularly from the accountability perspective, it can be predicted that Bangladesh will further regress from its 2008 status and may transform into a “degraded”- authoritarian or “emergency regime” where people will loose their rights and freedom in substantive manner, elections will be meaningless exercise. Extreme polarization of forces, high degree of intolerance will lead to growing protests, discontents and civil armed conflict. The political opposition will be further muzzled, and hope for an inclusive society will give way to a conflict along religious, economic and political divides; • Scenario – 2 : Democratic chaos: Opposition triggered as well as leaderless (issue-based) mass protests leading to widespread violence, dissensions and civil strife especially in urban (major cities), semi-urban and rural ( major district towns and upa-zillas) resulting in collapse of the government paving the way for alternative governance arrangement (third force) and subsequent transition to a reformed democracy.

10. Future Outlook • Can the current regime recover and consolidate democracy? Difficult given the past performance and present policy stalemate created by political leadership, and the state of political and state institutions which are not being able or capable to play a robust role. The political standoff between the party in power and the opposition will prevent the country from dealing with critical political, economic and foreign policy issues that are now faced by the country Will new leadership usher in a New Bangladesh ? People of Bangladesh aspire new and effective political leadership to emerge in the context of continued non-governance, extreme polarization of politics and paralysis of democratic institutions in Bangladesh. But the outcome is not assured, and remains in the gray zone. Much will depend on how people’s expectations take shape and direction through events, and political parties, state and other societal stakeholders renegotiate a new democratic order for future governance