1.

As new concerns have been raised among political parties, civil society and people at different levels about how the democratic transition will take place in post-July Bangladesh, there has been intense debate on almost every issue; although recent global experience shows that debate, dialogue and civil society activism are important in the transitional transition. Unprecedented activism is also visible in post-coup Bangladesh.

2. 

 

The discussion of structural reform of the state in Bangladesh, which has been going on for a long time on a small and rather specialised scale, the July People’s Uprising has made it the subject of public discussion. The question is, what is reform? How will it be? And what will be the process?

Consensus has not yet been reached on these issues. Most of the discussion is about the reform of the constitution – some are in favour of the new constitution, some are in favour of some fundamental reforms. But since none of this is possible without the consensus of the various political entities, the way must be paved through compromise.

However, when it comes to the democratic transition in post-coup Bangladesh, an old complaint is repeatedly coming to the fore – all ideas about democracy in Bangladesh are only election-centric. Many people are strongly criticising this’ election-oriented ‘democracy. Poet, writer and thinker Farhad Mazhar has long been a strong critic of such thinking. After the coup, he insisted that elections have nothing to do with democracy, and voting does not make a democratic state.

“Recently, Mirza M Hasan, a senior researcher at BIGD, echoed similar criticisms, saying that mainstream politicians have confined democracy to the” “limited concept” “of electoral democracy for political purposes.”

3. 

Farhad Mazhar and Mirza M. Hasan’s critique’s main tone – democracy will not be established only through elections, it is definitely predictable. But this criticism is often unable to take into account the political reality and experience of the last fifty years of Bangladesh.

“When Farhad Mazhar speaks of” “people” “and their” “direct participation,” “it is not clear how that” “people” “will be defined.” “A tangible and effective path can be found if we go beyond the abstract concept of” “people” “and acknowledge the inevitability of existing political realities and institutions.” It is necessary to reach consensus through continuous dialogue and debate among the existing groups and actors of the state, because without consensus, any reform or break will not be sustainable. 

One of the major political crises in Bangladesh revolves around the absence of a peaceful transfer of power process. For five decades, most of these people have not been able to participate in elections fairly. That is, no arrangement has yet been made for the peaceful removal of whoever or whoever comes to power.

As a result, the process of transfer of power is always bleeding – no one in power has been removed from power without a coup, a bloodless movement or a coup. Even in the wake of election demands, bodies have been found in large numbers. Many of us who were born in the 1990s, even past the age of 30, have yet to exercise our right to vote freely.

In such a political reality, ‘elections’ will naturally become the main element in any discussion about democracy. But this harsh reality is rarely reflected in the above criticisms.

On the other hand, criticism of electoral democracy is not surprising to us because of the long authoritarian rule. We have seen in the past how the electoral process has been ‘manipulated’ or ‘development’ has been presented in contrast to democracy.

4. 

 

Don’t misunderstand, I am not claiming that ‘only elections are democracy’ or that dictatorship has not been established by using elections. Rather, it is said that the election system is the most important for democracy.

This’ one-day franchise ‘of changing the government for five years is the very first step of democracy. We have not yet achieved this initial stage, nor have we been able to build a constitutional and political framework to do so. Just as it is true that in a country where fair elections have not been possible for most of the five decades, all the talk will revolve around elections, the criticism of political reality – electoral democracy – will in fact give strength to the anti-democratic parties.

As a result, it is natural to consider it an urgent discussion at the moment how this’ one-day ‘voting right can be implemented smoothly, how to create sustainable arrangements for the protection of voting rights, and what kind of institutions will prevent electoral autocracy. Although no visible consensus has been reached so far, discussions are going on everywhere from the intellectual level to the political arena, how is this reform possible?

5. 

 

“Recently, Farhad Mazhar called such discussions on reforms” “anti-people” “and” “counter-revolutionary.” “” “He has long theorised a” “revolutionary break” “from the existing system, and calls the July coup a” “constitutional moment.” “”

Quoting renowned theorist Antonio Negri, he said in an article published in Prothom Alo recently that the people’s constitutional power negates the existing constitution and legal framework and builds new power structures and systems. “He rejected” “representative democracy” “and” “institutional reform” “as” “constitutional counter-revolution.” “” According to him, their purpose is to prevent the direct participation of the people in democracy by perpetuating the looters and the mafia class.

“Farhad Mazhar’s response to liberal democracy is very” “well thought out” “and” “sharp.” “” But political theorist Shantal Mouffe raises an urgent question.

“Shantal Mouffe criticised the” “exodus” “or complete abandonment of existing institutions by Antonio Negri and Michel Hardt in their various works criticising representative democracy.” Although a left-wing thinker and critic of liberal democracy, he rejected the radical positions of Negri and Hardt.

“For Mouffe, politics is a” “struggle for hegemony” “- a continuous process of shaping and restructuring the collective will on a common symbolic scale.” It involves the competition between existing institutions (albeit flawed ones) to court various interests, form alliances and exert influence.

It is not possible to eliminate ‘politics’ (i.e. the friend-foe divide that will inevitably be active in politics). The idea of erasing this divide and creating a single ‘people’ concept is not realistic. “Rather, institutions and hegemonic structures are needed to ensure that the inevitable” “hostility” “in politics flows in an” “agonistic” “rather than” “antagonistic” “direction towards each other.” “That is why he considers the idea of” “absolute democracy” “without institutions as dangerous and unrealistic.”

“According to Mouffe, Negri’s radical stance dismisses the inevitability of” “political” “and institutionalism and does not help to understand the reality of politics.” “He does not reject institutions, but advocates making them” “radical” “and more democratic (Shantal Mouffe, Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically).”

For this, the hegemonic fight that Mouffe talks about must continue within a partnership framework and through existing flawed institutions. According to him, the goal is not to destroy the basic structure of the game, but to change its rules, so that the result becomes more democratic.

Mowaff warns that the rejection of representative democracy is a strategic mistake. “This can lead to a” “post-political” “or” “post-political” “situation, where real opposition is threatened with suppression and the path to right-wing populism or populism is paved.”

6. 

 

“The reason for the reference to Mouf is this: When Farhad Mazhar speaks of” “people” “and their” “direct participation,” “it is not clear how that” “people” “will be defined.” There is no clear direction in the concept of ‘people’ as to how the journey from a general ‘no’ to a definite ‘yes’ can be made. It is often presented as an abstract concept.

The democratic transition will be difficult if the inevitable ‘political’ reality that Mouffe talks about is not institutionalised. “As a result, when Mazhar says that the people will make their own constitution, that is, talk of” “absolute democracy,” “two main problems appear.”

• Sahul Ahmed, writer and researcher