The Threat of Popular Autocracy in Bangladesh: A Call for Democratic Reforms
Bangladesh faces the risk of transitioning into a popular autocracy if systemic democratic reforms fail to empower citizens. Constitutional recommendations aimed at preserving liberal democracy may be inadequate against the rise of a demagogue with mass support. The historical context of liberal capitalism demonstrates a persistent struggle for genuine democratic engagement, necessitating a reevaluation of governance structures to ensure accountability and equity.
The potential shift of Bangladesh towards a popular autocracy raises concerns about its democratic integrity. While constitutional reforms aimed at reinforcing liberal democratic principles might hinder known autocrats like Sheikh Hasina, they may prove insufficient against a demagogue with widespread public support. Current global trends reveal that well-established democracies, particularly in the context of the United States, struggle against rising authoritarianism, raising questions about the efficacy of the representative democracy model applied in Bangladesh’s constitutional recommendations.
The head of the Constitution Reform Commission, Ali Riaz, emphasized reviewing 121 national constitutions to devise reforms for Bangladesh. However, these recommendations mainly draw from the ethos of contemporary liberal democracies rather than exploring more direct democratic traditions like those of Classical Athens. This approach prompts the question of whether the chosen ideological path will genuinely enhance democratic practices or only provide superficial safeguards.
The crisis within liberal democracies globally indicates a crisis of faith in their systems. The U.S. Constitution, while celebrated, has limited participatory governance, placing representatives in a position removed from direct public accountability. This trend may weaken popular sovereignty as politicians prioritize interests of the elite over the masses, foreshadowing the risks faced by emerging democracies, including Bangladesh.
The historical context shows that the liberalism and capitalism partnership has often overshadowed the need for more participatory governance. Political inequity and economic oppression as experienced in newer democracies could lead to seeking solutions in populist demagoguery rather than grassroots democratic engagement. A failure to address systemic inequalities may pave the way for the rise of autocratic figures exploiting unrest and discontent.
In Bangladesh, constitutional recommendations such as appointing five non-affiliated citizens to the upper house seem tokenistic given their limited role. Meaningful citizen representation could effectively counteract authoritarian impulses, yet without a robust mechanism for citizen engagement, the risk of political discontent remains high. Embracing a more participatory model rooted in direct democracy principles could better serve the needs of the Bangladeshi populace.
Current trends depict a concerning potential for a popular autocracy arising in Bangladesh, with social media demagogues gaining influence over traditional political figures. The proliferation of populist rhetoric and scapegoating of marginalized groups demands alertness from those who support democratic ideals yet seek to avert majoritarian tyranny. The lesson learned from dysfunctional party politics necessitates a call for a citizen-led democratic oversight system to ensure true representation and accountability in governance.
In conclusion, the trajectory of Bangladesh’s democratic development could lean dangerously towards popular autocracy if proactive reforms, citizen engagement, and systemic accountability are not prioritized. The constitutional recommendations, while potentially countering known autocrats, fail to address the fundamental need for empowering ordinary citizens. Emphasizing a more participatory governance model rooted in direct democracy ideals is essential in safeguarding against authoritarianism. The crucial challenge lies in creating a robust and inclusive democratic process that can adapt to contemporary societal complexities and inequalities.
Original Source: netra.news
