Home ›› 13 Sep 2022 ›› Opinion
World-famous economist Dr. Amartya Sen once remarked, “While democracy is not yet universally practiced, nor indeed universally accepted, in the general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved the status of being taken to be generally right.”
He epitomises this sentiment, meaning that, in any case, it is difficult to think of democracy as a pure system. But apart from this doctrine, there is no opportunity to think about any other method of governance.
The former Indian President Shree Pranab Mukherjee wrote in his famous book, The Coalition Years, “Effective parliamentary democracy relies on 3Ds- Debate, Dissent and Decision, over a period of time, a fourth D- Disruption- has been injected into the system. This last D puts serious pressure on the government and its ability to govern... …Disruption hurts the Opposition more than the government since it denies them the opportunity to raise the concerns of the people”. (So we need to be aware of the apparent fact that frequent house interruptions cost the exchequer money. Moreover, the current disruption imposes significant pressure on the government or merely restricts each member’s ability to voice their opinions at the highest national decision-making body.
Any democratic system ultimately depends on the strength of its institutions to endure and flourish. Therefore, if we compare where the parliamentary form of democracy has succeeded in neo-liberated developing countries that achieved political emancipation after World War II and where it has failed, it is found that it may have been unable to establish the necessary institutions to support the democratic structure.
Even though they are interdependent in the parliamentary form, institutions like an independent court, a free press, the legislature, and the administration all have complete authority over money and taxation. And how these institutions can be made more effective should be a priority in a democratic system.
Last September, on the eve of the International Day of Democracy, UN Secretary-General António Guterres rightly said: “Without a free press, democracy cannot survive. Without freedom of expression, there is no freedom.”
It is possible to assess the current level of democracy worldwide. However, only with the full participation and support of the international community, national governing bodies, civil society, and individuals can democracy be realised as a reality to be enjoyed by everyone, everywhere.
Democracies must adhere to the principles of freedom, human rights respect, and the periodic, legitimate election of all eligible voters. Democracy, in turn, offers the ideal setting for the defense and effective fulfillment of human rights.
“If we want to achieve the goal, only one thing is needed, which is establishing democracy. But this democracy faces a lot of challenges. So, firstly, Bangladesh’s indirect democracy needs to be converted into direct democracy because power is left in the hands of a specific group in indirect democracies. Secondly, the executive department, parliament, and judiciary must be independent”, said Dr. Akbar Ali Khan, an eminent economist and a former caretaker government advisor.
Many people call our era the age of democracy. Since the collapse of the Soviet state (in 1991), we have seen the dynamic spread of democracy worldwide. It has impacted the political map of the whole world, society, and the consciousness and aspirations of the people. But unfortunately, many autocratic or totalitarian countries have changed their course and started their journey toward democracy under that influence.
Living in Bangladesh, we are also not isolated from that particular political stream. On the contrary, it has influenced us too. As Dr. Akbar Ali Khan puts it, “Constitutional and democratic evolutions are taking place in different countries of the world. Bangladesh is not out of this progress. “
Professor Samuel P. Huntington has set up an analysis of how democracy spreads worldwide. Dr. Samuel, an American political scientist, describes the three waves of democracy in an article published in the Journal of Democracy and further explains it in his book, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.
When most white males in the United States were granted the right to vote in the early 19th century, the First Wave of Democracy (1828–1926) got underway. Then, before 1900, came a few other countries, including France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, and Argentina. Twenty-nine democracies existed in the world at its height following the collapse of the Russian, German, Austrian, and Ottoman empires in 1918. However, when Benito Mussolini became the leader of Italy in 1922, the trend started to turn. Newly established democracies were affected mainly by the collapse because they could not fend off the aggressive emergence of fascist, totalitarian, and militaristic authoritarian movements that systematically rejected democracy. The first wave’s low point occurred in 1942 when there were only 12 democracies left in the world.
The second wave started after the Allies won World War II and ended in 1962 when there were 36 established democracies worldwide. But unfortunately, at this point, the second wave also began to wane. And between 1962 and the middle of the 1970s, there were only 30 democracies left in existence. The third wave, however, was about to rise in a way no one had ever seen; thus, the “flat line” would not last long.
When women’s suffrage is taken into consideration, scholars observe that the appearance of “waves” of democracy mostly vanishes; in addition, certain countries shift their stances rather dramatically: Switzerland, which is typically included as part of the first wave, did not grant women the right to vote until 1971.
The 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal and the late 1970s democratic transition in Spain marked the beginning of the third wave. With this were the historic shifts toward democracy in Asia-Pacific nations (such as Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines) between 1986 and 1988, Eastern Europe following the fall of the Soviet Union, and sub-Saharan Africa starting in 1989. In certain places, democracy has grown astonishingly. By 1978, only three Latin American countries—Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela—were democratic, and by 1995, when the wave had spread to twenty nations, just two—Haiti and Cuba—remained totalitarian.
Democracy can regress in states experiencing or having undergone a wave of democratization. Political scientists and theorists predict that, like its forerunners in the first and second waves, the third wave has peaked and will soon start to recede.
Following the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the United States, the “war on terror” officially began, but there was considerable backsliding. It is yet unclear how extensive or long-lasting that degradation is. Countries from the third wave, such as Portugal, Spain, South Korea, and Taiwan, have fully consolidated their democracies rather than going backward. They even had more robust democracies as of 2020 than many of their rivals with considerably longer histories as democratic nations.
After all these ups and downs, people seem to be more optimistic about the future of democracy today than ever before. The main source of that optimism is the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the Cold War, on November 9, 1989. Many see it as the beginning of the last wave of democracy. After the Berlin Wall fell, many countries merged into Europe.
However, there is no doubt that democracy is a sound system in theory. But its implementation should never be considered easy. Although there is no problem with understanding democracy as an ideal, many problems and complications must be faced in implementing this ideology. Therefore, it will never be possible to implement this doctrine fully.
Although democracy is not a pure system, it cannot be called a complete failure. Yet again, it can’t be said that it was very successful. There is no doubt that democracy has come a long way in terms of success in some countries. For example, the Latin American country of Chile can be an example in this regard. At the same time, the failure of democracy in many countries is a fact, not fiction, and this reality has to be accepted. For example, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., are failure states.
“Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for other forms that have been tried from time to time,” said Winston Churchill in November 1947. How relevant his words are till now!
The writer is a freelance contributor. He can be contacted at [email protected]
