Electoral Corruption in Bangladesh

Muhammad Yeahia Akhter

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351782463
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Politics & International Relations
• Categoría: Political Campaigns & Elections

This title was first published in 2001. Rigging elections in favour of those in power has become a common practice in Bangladesh. Muhammad Yeahia Akhter focuses on the significance of elections in this ostensibly democratic state and portrays how electoral corruption has damaged the process of democratic consolidation. The author reveals the failure of both civilian and military governments to obtain democratic legitimacy and/or credibility through free and fair elections. The study examines the relatively democratic, but largely non-transparent nature of electioneering under non-partisan caretaker governments. The study provides a source of understanding of fair electoral process for the politicians and electoral officials in Bangladesh and other democratizing polities. It provides valuable information to the policy makers and practitioners in order to reform the electoral process in Bangladesh and in other similar countries.

1 Elections and Electoral Corruption: An Introduction

Introduction

Democracy – to a lesser or greater extent – is the most widely applied system for running a state in the contemporary world. To some it is a form of government, to others, a way of social life.¹ It entitles citizens to participate freely in the political decision making processes that affect their individual and collective lives. It makes government responsible to the will of the majority without being oblivious to the interests of the minority. It is representative in character and stresses equality of all citizens before law.² Political participation is the bedrock of democracy.

The application of democracy across nations, however, is not uniform. Rulers, either democratically elected or in possession of power through extra-democratic means, interpret the notion in their idiosyncratic ways. The political culture of a country determines the way democracy is practised. The degree of democratic freedom, the nature of political institutions and processes, and public’s perception vary due to the differences in socio-cultural norms and customs, value systems, people’s political awareness, and the stage of a country’s economic progress. In developing countries, democracy does not operate according to the postulates of Western political thought. The process of democratisation there faces unforeseen stumbling blocks, dilemmas and paradoxes caused by poverty, low levels of literacy and education, social and political violence, absence of political awareness, lack of tolerance, mutual respect and trust, malfunctioning of legislative and party systems, unsound governance, and electoral malfeasance. Several Third World countries have experienced long periods of military rule that retarded the growth of effective political institutions, militarised the administration and corrupted the political system.

The countries where military intervention has occurred have, with notable exceptions, low levels of economic productivity and high degrees of social cleavage. Bienen has described it in terms of ‘political gaps between rulers and ruled, economic gaps between classes, and social and cultural gaps between linguistics, racial, or ethnic groups…’.³ The causes and nature of military takeovers vary from country to country and situation to situation, although some common causes may be identified. Chronic political instability or failure of democratic politics, economic difficulties, and social fragmentation lead to legitimacy loss for civilian regimes. The military may also intervene when its professional or corporate interests are threatened.⁴ Corporate interests include adequate budgetary support, institutional autonomy and exclusiveness, protection against encroachments from rival institutions and the survival and viability of the military as a social institution.⁵ Widespread political and administrative corruption or other sorts of national crises like external threats to sovereignty may also goad the military to capture political power. To do so it does not need the unanimity of the armed forces, rather a company or a battalion may be sufficient.⁶

The number of military takeovers in the Third World has gradually and consistently increased over the decades. Twelve percent of all independent states of the world were under military rule in 1961. The percentage rose to 19 in 1966, to 27 in 1973, and to 29 by 1974. By 1974, 56 percent of Third World states had experienced military rule at least once.⁷ In the last two decades, however, a number of such states reverted to elected civilian government.

The military juntas adopt several strategies after seizure of power to consolidate their position and civilianise their rule.⁸ These strategies vary in different countries although they reveal several common characteristics. Initially, the military elites eschew a long-term interest in politics; rather they claim that their takeover of a political authority is a temporary measure apparently to save the nation from a crisis or rid the society of social and economic problems like corruption, degeneration of law and order and widespread economic woes. They seek the co-operation of the people to solve such problems and urge them to participate in development programmes they initiate. Coup leaders declare their intentions to arrange free and fair elections and to hand over power to the elected authority. They promise to return to the barracks once their mission is accomplished but very rarely do so. They procrastinate over arranging general elections and seek other alternative means to obtain legitimacy for their rule. They use the state machinery for realising their political goals that include the launching of a political platform or a party and attempt to woo prominent political personalities and leaders from other parties. They undertake some policies in the economic, administrative and local spheres and try to publicise the changes they are purported to bring about. They exercise excessive censorship of the state-run media, especially radio and television and launch mass mobilisation schemes to publicise their policies with the objective of broadening their support base at all levels of society. In their bid to entrench their position, they invoke the support of the civil bureaucracy and the higher military echelons by furthering their interests. They weaken the political opposition by fragmenting political parties and very carefully use religion to appeal to the devout.

East and Southeast Asia, South Korea, Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia represent military rule and the process of its civilianisation. Thailand and Myanmar afford an ‘additional and unusual opportunity’ for examining the effects of military training on political ethics, behaviour and values, as its military and civilian bureaucracies come from the same socio-economic groups. The situation is similar in the two South Asian states — Pakistan and Bangladesh — where the military rulers have civilianised their rule through stage-managed elections and influenced the democratic political culture by splitting opposition political parties and militarising political and administrative organisations. The armed forces usually play the key role in central decision making and exert considerable political influence. They claim to be the custodians of state sovereignty and the primary defenders of any external or internal attack against the government. Yet, military regimes in their bid to obtain legitimacy for their rule have to rely on the electoral exercise in whatever form, whether corrupt or otherwise. While it is simply a legitimising and consolidating tool for a military regime, free and fair elections can contribute towards transforming an illiberal civilian regime to one that might approximate features of a liberal democracy.

Democracy and Elections

Elections are one of the basic pillars of democracy and central to the process of democratic political participation. Nowadays they have emerged as a ‘ritual of choice’ all over the democratic world. Elections serve as the basic mechanism for both selecting and replacing ruling elites and for providing a regular and systematic succession in government. Elections help to determine how a country is governed and at the same time select who will exercise that power. They are the principal mechanism by which citizens hold governments accountable, both retrospectively for their policies and more generally for the manner in which they govern.⁹ Elections reinforce party activities and intensify political awareness of the people. They educate voters, provide the foundations for representation and grant legitimacy to government.¹⁰ A political system can display its degree of democracy through its electoral operations. The role of elections in democratic procedure varies across nations and depends upon a number of preconditions such as level of literacy, freedom of expression, and tolerance and mutual respect in politics.

Democratic systems of government are historically relatively recent, although Greek society with its electoral system based on consensus was an exception. Where democracy was unknown, rulers either enthroned themselves by hereditary succession and in some cases by force, conquest, and the like, or were selected by elites and influential members of the society. However, the democratic process of selecting rulers based on the verdict of the majority gradually emerged in many parts of the world. The importance of elections is nowadays recognised by almost every nation state; even one-party and totalitarian regimes often resort to some form of electioneering to secure legitimacy for their rule.

Political parties and elections are symbiotically related. Elections are meaningless without the participation of parties; on the other hand, parties become torpid without periodic elections. Present parties with the opportunity of placing their policies before the electorate through elections facilitate a closer relationship between them and citizens. During elections parties strive to be perceived as ‘genuinely’ committing themselves to the service of the people and party leaders energise themselves in focusing the campaigns on public issues and problems. Elections help originate intense competition between parties which work hard to win the support of voters. They are one of the major mechanism that help parties to measure their strength and support and to establish links with society.¹¹

Elections contribute to political development by providing legitimacy and political stability to a regime. They are a powerful agent of political socialisation. Political culture, which deeply influences political development, both shapes and is shaped by the way parties and the electorate perceive and approach elections. Elections can help minimise crises and problems of development. Wider political participation, the foundation of political development, becomes conspicuous during elections. All categories of adult citizens, including men and women, the rich and the poor, the enlightened and the illiterate, the employed and the jobless, and the law-abiding and the delinquent, get the opportunity to have their say in the formation of a government through elections.

Elections in the Western liberal democracies acquired a sophisticated form in the contemporary world after passing through a long evolutionary period of reform and experimentation. Elections in early times were organised in a restricted domain. Suffrage was limited to the tax-payer, the property-holder, or one who practised a particular religious faith. Women were denied the right to exercise their franchise. Voting in many countries was indirect, the whole body of qualified voters elected an intermediate body of electors who in turn elected officials or representatives. Later, this was replaced by direct elections and the secret ballot system, and by the mid 20th century most western democracies had in place universal adult suffrage. The electoral rights of women were recognised and the voting age was lowered to increase the size of the electorate. Over time, these western democracies established elections as a strong political institution that served to make their polities reasonably representative.¹²

Third World Electoral Culture and Practice

Many Third World countries adopted or adapted Western electoral systems as constitutional requirements for changing governments or for securing a fresh mandate for ruling regimes. However, the character of elections and the electoral culture in these countries vary from those in the West. There are various reasons for this. Chronic poverty and illiteracy of the majority of voters make them dependent on their patrons who influence their choice.¹³ Patronage and patron-client relationships become more effective and evident during an election.¹⁴ In South Asian countries, it is not only active in rural areas but also similarly operative in modern organisations like political parties a...