Rather than assuming that elections will necessarily speed up democracy, the exclusion of public risks of marginalisation could produce ‘shallow’ democracy, writes Zahir Ahmed
BROWSING the internet on my mobile at home in central Buffalo, I was watching the campaigns for the forthcoming elections to be held today. I receive regular texts and video clips from friends and constituents in Bangladesh. Before the 13th national assembly elections, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami have made pledges on women empowerment, agricultural development, state reforms, economic recovery and youth empowerment after the July uprising.
Watching live videos, it becomes obvious that some members of parliament are trying to establish good relations with their constituents irrespective of their political affiliations. They also want to be perceived as benevolent and having a caring disposition towards the citizens. Their moral standing is continually reproduced in people’s minds by the generosity of their family towards ‘the poor.’
From my previous fieldwork experiences of public engagements and parliament members with the SOAS, University of London in 2015–2017, I can understand that whilst the benevolent activities of the members of parliament are aimed at creating an image of a ‘dedicated’ leader to the constituents, who include party activists, the objective of these activities can be described as public performances to win vote. I have also found that when particular members of parliament colluded with groups of their own constituents to favour political nepotism, acts that amounts to inclusion or exclusion as an abuse of power do the performance of a representation breakdown?
The formal role of members of parliament may be as legislative actors in the parliament, arguing for their constituents’ interests. These are based on the moral nature of discursive practices manifest in help and support. Such practices allow members of parliament to renew their relationships with their constituents as powerful benefactors intact even when politicians in general disappoint them. But this renewed relation does not arise suddenly with a thunderclap and it does not appear through formal political events. It emerges over years of endless informal social interactions across the constituency whether responding to crises, weddings or funerals.
The perception about elected members of parliament in Bangladesh is multi-faceted. In 2015, ordinary people of one constituency praised the then member of parliament, elected with no opposition, as benevolent who used to aid many people in many ways such as donating lungis, saris and so on. The member of parliament had sufficient wealth and did not need to earn much more. His wife also assisted him in his philanthropy. In their own inns, people gathered and were served food till 2 to 3 o’ clock in the morning.
The member of parliament visited their residence at least two to three times a month. His people were satisfied with his work because the member of parliament had responded to their demand that was to negate the sliding of riverbeds, which results in people losing their houses. The member of parliament, before the elections, had contributed a lot to the prevention of river slides and the construction of embankments. On every Eid, he donated clothes to those who adhered to the association with no exception.
During the campaign for the forthcoming election, I have heard that people are happy to have a good candidate. According to them, the candidate roams around in disguise on a cheap bike wearing a punjabi. For example, on one day, arriving at a field he saw that little labourer children were being paid in watermelon instead of wages. At that instance, he took out some money from his pocket and distributed it to those children. At this, people wondered who this gracious person was. When they realised that it was the candidate for the elections, they are amazed at his following the humanistic path of Caliph Umar.
In another case, the image of a candidate has been constructed over years. At home, he wears lungi, which makes people feel a proximity towards their representative. Whenever he comes home, feasts are served at the inn to anyone who walks in till 2:00am. Even his wife engages herself in cooking. In addition, he pays the fares for some on their return home. People think that the potential member of parliament is a kind person that is why he has promised not to draw his pay cheque from public funds. Another presumption is that if the candidate gets elected, he will notify the parliament of the central predicament: unemployment. They hope that their member of parliament will give a speech in the parliament on the problem of the area and they will watch the live telecast.
But we cannot take this construction for granted as if it is natural. The majority of the constituents believe that members of parliament must have a commitment to serving their constituents. The dilemma is: members of parliament are public representatives, but what happens when they are socially and culturally insensitive? At the end of the Awami League regime, a member of the 2024 parliament was accused of demanding that a serving teacher, a headteacher, repeatedly ‘stand and squat holding his ears with his two hands’ until he was too tired to continue and felt down. This incident highlights the behaviour of a particular member of parliament who was under public scrutiny. But, it also raised questions about the role of members of parliament in general.
From this brief vignette of the constituents, it would seem that members of parliament are viewed as a mix of benefactor, patron and spiritual healer as shaman. The voices of the field suggest that members of parliament must maintain a remote relationship with their constituents. So, the claim by political parties that represents a highly diverse group of people, with different demands and priorities, clearly deserves far more scrutiny and debate.
Holding election alone is not enough to ensure democracy. Parliamentary democracy can exacerbate divisions in society if ordinary citizens are left off. Rather than assuming that elections will necessarily speed up democracy, the exclusion of public risks of marginalisation could produce ‘shallow’ democracy. The July uprising warrants a shift from a narrow, top-down and autocratic approach to institutional strengthening, which focuses on rules and mass participation.
That members of parliament should not act as ‘modern Mughals’ often reflects a critique of autocratic behaviour, corruption and disconnect from citizens. For electing members of parliament, their political work should be intertwined with social relations in two broader senses. First, in contrast to Mughal emperors’ portrayal of the separation between public political and private social realms, the constituents want to have access to members of parliament in their constituencies informally. Second, the relationships between the elected and electorate are both political and social.
The observations and findings have some important implications for supporting democratisation. Unfortunately, some Islamic parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami, have not nominated diversified population as their candidates on grounds of gender, not even a single woman, ethnicity or religion, with one Hindu candidate. Public engagements continue to preclude the deepening of democracy.
Dr Zahir Ahmed is a research professor in the anthropology department in the State University of New York, Buffalo.
