Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): “This project started as a very small project. The idea was to create a platform for people’s perspectives regarding non-traditional security or human security and democracy. Now the project has become much bigger. There are methodologies and communities of thinking that are seriously observed. A north-east Indian dialogue has taken place which shows the way of linking different communities. The idea of indexing democracy was developed by International IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) and it was actually developed by two British professors. It was found very attractive and generated a lot of debate. Studies in eight countries were conducted and I think Bangladesh is one of them. We tried to analyse how people from different groups and sections think about democracy and contribute in the process. Let’s now take a look at the qualitative side. It is purely a dialogue to extract different views. Let’s now get a view of how experts view the important issues of democracy in their own countries. The fourth phase is the dialogues and the fifth consists of the case studies. I’ll run through each of them. As we are going to do these five components of the study, these exercises will produce a lot of data. Now, the question arises that how we would organize so much data”.

“To organize data, we have developed a grid around which we’ll hang all the data whether that comes from cross-sectional surveys, qualitative studies or case studies. We will try to talk about democracy in terms of these four major components so that we can develop empirically embedded theories instead of simple theories. So, we thought we would start with the idea of the Promise of democracy. This is really a participatory exercise. We would like to see what aspirations promise invokes, what it contains, why it is necessary to use democracy to justify one’s political aspirations and what moral burden does the South Asian democracy carry. For the common people of South Asia democracy has become the pathway of a better world and this pathway carries some moral burdens such as freedom from fear in terms of tyranny, fear in terms of state repression, fear in terms of life and property, fear in terms of police violence and also freedom from want. Let us begin, without being handicapped, what is the promise of democracy? So, we would like to see what the promise of democracy in Bangladesh is”.

“Secondly what this design matrix is? It means what types of institutions should be produced? For example, a suggestion came up in the north Indian dialogue; whether they can think of a federation of eight north-Indian states within the Indian Federation”.

“The Third level is the working of democracy. It may promise one thing and in design characteristic be one but in its actual working we have lots of deviations and distortions that are called the corruptions of the system. Why is it that? For example in Gujarat, the police are not the first to whom people would want to go”.

“What is the minority protection in Bangladesh? Democracy has some notions of rights. But are they translated into majoritarian politics? And then, of course, what are the outcomes that democracy produces? Does it produce strategies of violence? In Bihar for example, private armies have emerged. Then of course, comes the future of democracy. Now, I’ll go through the five instruments for the study:

“We are doing such a vast exercise in South Asia because this region is under-represented. There is no significant South Asia-wide democracy study. The Human Development report is made of limited data”.

“There is a calendar for the project. The first part has begun as we have had the country level dialogues. All the fieldwork would be concluded by 2004 and early 2005. We start operating into it in 2005. Hopefully, by September 2005 the report would be prepared”.

Mr. Abdur Rob Khan (Research Director, BIISS): “It is a very interesting and laudable project for South Asian democracy. I have a number of observations and I start with the last one i.e. the calendar. Since this project is spread over three years from 2003 to 2005, I think, it would be a very nice idea to have interim publications. If there is an interim report, say on Bangladesh or on South Asia, I think that would be helpful for accommodating feedback generated in the process. My second intervention is methodological. The typology that you have mentioned like survey, elite survey seems to me overlapping. My point is that in research findings you come up with answers that puzzle, or that do not go to commonplace wisdom or that is counter intuitive. So, it seems to me that at the end of the product there would be more apparently counter-intuitive results than actuality in the South Asian system. My criticism is that the theoretical position or the position you have taken on the literature survey is close to the ideal and the reality that will come out from the survey would be more counter-intuitive. So, at the launching stage you could have made it more realistic and then the result would be less counter-intuitive as many undemocratic changes had already taken place in the name of democracy in Bangladesh”.

Prof. Amena Mohsin (Chairperson, Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “You began by saying that one of the premises of the study you have started with was that there is a discontent with the dominant discourse on democracy with which I fully agree but when I was listening to your presentation, I do find many of your premises are based on the dominant discourse. To begin with like you were talking about the three ideals of democracy: the popular control of government, political equality etc. I suggest that the word ‘equality’ should be replaced with the word ‘equity’ because equality is the basis of many problems in a stratified society. Regarding the outcome of democracy, I’d like to say that all over the world the dynasties are coming up as an outcome of democracy and how far they are democratic is a question. However, in some ethnic communities dynastic rule is a form of democracy and this must be taken into account. You also said that, South Asian democracy is radical. I am somewhat uncomfortable with this word. So, I suggest that the word ‘radical’ used for South Asian democracy should be replaced with ‘illiberal’ or ‘unprogressive’ as the word ‘radical’ has a positive connotation. In the context of Sri Lanka you have used the word ‘patronage’. I think it would be better to use ‘resource transfer’ and it is not limited to South Asia only. Moreover, one has to look at what level the resource transfer is taking place”.

“With due respect, you have mentioned that there is a churning of democracy in India after Gujarat but I don’t see how you have put it in that way. We found the same party coming into power in Gujarat after that incident. Elections are now so much controlled by violence and mastans that people’s voices get lost. So, when we are talking of churning, we have to see whether churning is really taking place or not. So, I’m very sceptical about the term”.

“You are talking of empirically embedded theory and that’s why you will talk to different communities during the survey. I recommend including the community of ‘hizra’ within the survey as this is the area where there is no patronage. For example, Shabnam Mousi, a hizra who is a Member of Parliament of India said that people cast votes in favour of him/her is because s/he has no relatives. Regarding the state of democracy in Bangladesh, I’d like to refer to a TV programme named ‘Prekhapat’, in which some villagers were asked who is the present government of Bangladesh. They could not answer that question and did not even bother to know it. And this is the state of democracy to a certain extant”.

Prof. Anwar Hossain (Department of History, University of Dhaka): “My intervention concerns your point on the assessment of Democracy. Democracy, as we perceive today, is something that we have acquired from the West and colonialism. We have acquired a western variant of democracy minus the spirit underlying it and this is why we face problems when we look at democracy in the context of South Asia. I appreciate you on the point about South Asian autonomy vis-à-vis democracy. The concept of democracy, generally, is not a monolithic one and particularly in the context of South Asia, I think, democracy, in the context of Bangladesh, is an aspiration and an institution. Both of them so far eluded us. Regarding historical resemblance of democracy in the context of South Asia, I’d like to say that democracy was there far back in history during the Indus-Valley Civilization. We have lots of documents and evidence of the fact this civilization was developed by a group of urban and civilized people who developed a system of representative governance and there was no existence of weapons and royal palaces in that civilization. Back in the mid 8th century in the history of Bengal there was a king named Gopala who was put into power by a group of people called ‘Prokiti Punja’ that is something like the civil society of the present world. Moreover, in the 15th century, the same thing happened to Alauddin Hossain Shah who was put on the thrown of Bengal. In both the cases there were no dynasty rulers and it was the ruled ones who selected the rulers. We had a democratic system in the past when the westerners used to live in caves such as the ‘Panchayat’ system. That’s why when we talk of democracy in South Asia we need to have the western theoretical perspective. Nonetheless, we need to look at it in the context of South Asia also”.

Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): “I’m really happy with the three sets of responses that I have. I value Rob’s suggestion about an interim report. We have plans for interim reports. In fact, we hope to publish the dialogue separately around June-July. On the methodological question that you raised, I think there may be a possibility of an overlapping methodology. I think the overlapping methodology will enhance the value of the study. The point you made on counter-intuitive is really interesting. Our report will not be so sensationalist. That’s why you would notice that the section on case studies in the survey is really intended to capture that bit. The section on qualitative reports will really do that. I began with theoretical tools because most of us in South Asia shy away from participating in the conceptual aspect. Now, democracy is the word that is used so loosely that it means nothing at all. It has become an invocation rather than a concept. One can challenge it and modify it. However, I value the opinion that you have given in terms of the counter-intuitive point. Regarding the point that you raised, Prof. Amena, I’d like to say that I’m succumbed to the dominant discourse. I think a lot of changes have gone to our choice of language. I think the choice of words are very deliberate and actually meets your condition. So, what I’m saying is that you may be reading differently but I am saying what you intend that I should be saying. Regarding dynasty, the point you have made is actually looked into through the case studies. Regarding cultural roots, looking into democracy in South Asia would be very valuable for the cultural component of democracy and that would actually enhance our cultural reading of the contemporary”.


Session II

This session of the dialogue started with Mr. Abdur Rob Khan in the Chair. It was an open floor discussion. There was no presentation.

Mr. Abdul Awal Mintoo (President, FBCCI): “I thank the organisers for organising this dialogue because democracy is vital for us. There are lots of discussions, processions and meetings for democracy. I don’t know whether anyone shed crocodile tears for democracy in 1971 because at that time I was not in Bangladesh. However, since 1985/86, there were abundant crocodile tears for democracy. In 1990, there was an abstract understanding among political parties that we would have a democratic system of governance. If democracy means the electorate can exercise their voting rights and change the government, then there is democracy in Bangladesh. But it is an open question whether the party to whom we give a mandate to form the government has any democratic mentality or not. It is proven that these people (political parties) have no idea about democracy at all. Once elected, the parties think that all should abide by what they say and there is no ‘if’ and ‘but’. When power is centred like this at one or two focal points, there is no scope left for accountability. The weak mechanism for accountability leads to weak governance, weak governance not only in the political field but also the administrative field. When a country faces such weak governance it reaches the verge of destruction. Our country, at present, is at this stage. For a society to be democratised, you must have a certain number of pillars. First of all, each organ of the government must act independently, judiciously and honestly. Our problem in Bangladesh today is that none of these organs work properly. Let’s see the organs of the government. They say that our Judiciary is supposedly independent as per the constitution but politics has crippled the Judiciary. Around 95 percent of the total cases take place in the lower Judiciary and this lower Judiciary is totally under the control of the executive. In the High Court and Supreme Court, political persons have been appointed as Judges for the last 7 to 8 years. Now, after every 6 months the Supreme Court gives the ruling to separate the Judiciary within 6 months and after that period the government submits a petition seeking 3 to 4 more months and thus the practice goes on. So, our Judiciary, technically and legally is not independent. Regarding the legislative branch of the government, I’d like to say that all the bills, amendments now are passed, even, without any quorum. It seems that the legislature has no headache about the bills and laws. The only thing that is left out is the people. No stakeholders have anything to say when bills are prepared and sent to the parliament. The Standing Committees of the Parliament are not functioning either. Unless these committees call upon the people to raise their views, then what is the use of these committees? It’s another mockery. I give you an example of a mockery that we have a President here who has no executive power. Usually, the election of the president creates a lot of hue and cry in the country but this system of electing the president is a mockery because with Article 70 enforced, no party member can vote against the party line. Again, on the one hand the president is respected because he represents the sovereignty but on the other hand, he is compelled to sign the bills by the government otherwise he will be ousted. The institution of Presidency has no meaning. So, we can see that, the power is concentrated in the Executive organ. So, unless we can demarcate the power through the real separation of power as well as checks and balances in the system, we will remain in this situation”.

“Sometimes, we say that we have a good constitution. But what’s the use of this constitution if it can’t protect me and tame the criminals? The criminals take me away at night and kill me in the morning and this constitution can’t ensure justice. One thing is clear either we have a good constitution, which can protect us and protect our freedom of speech or we don’t have any proper constitution”.

“Now, let’s discuss another pillar of democracy that is the local government. Here in Bangladesh, we have the Prime Minister’s office where all powers are concentrated. No power lies with the President or the Local government. And we have union councils and some thugs are elected there. But they don’t have any functional authority to do anything. So, for the last twelve years it is the Prime Minister’s office that has been exercising power”.

“Now, let’s go back to the other pillars of democracy and the other social groups. Every single civil society organization—be it bar council, be it teachers’ association, be it FBCCI, has been divided into two (The Awami League and the BNP) because the politicians are tampering them and have virtually killed them by now. These are the institutions that supposedly work for the people and with the people, and challenge the government when it violates people’s rights. If in a country there is no single institution that is left un-politicised, what democracy we’re talking about? The definition of democracy is not necessary to be redefined. Two hundred years ago, the Americans defined it. But we are still going on to define it. But at the same time we, in our country, are breaking all the pillars of democratic institutions, which are supposed to democratise society. So, I say that we can index the destruction of democracy while indexing democracy. Here only the people are democratic because they cast their votes but whoever comes to power behaves undemocratically. Grabbing all the power, grabbing all money, breaking all the institutions is democracy to the two political parties. This is the only country where political parties are not governed by any laws. So, we need to reorganize the political parties. They need to exercise democracy in their own party before democratising the society. So, we need to start from the basics. My personal view is that for the time being we should not waste time discussing democracy rather let’s start with building the institutions. Unless we change some clauses of our constitution and make sure that all the social organizations and groupings including the political parties know their roles and they are compelled to play their roles, I see no ray of hope”.

Ambassador Walliur Rahman: (Director, BILIA): “Mr. Mintoo has made some very cogent arguments about the state of democracy in Bangladesh. We’ll start with two basic things. I think, several speakers including the last speaker are voicing not only their own concerns but also the concern of the majority of the people of Bangladesh. Sir Hamilton said his greatest contribution to democracy was the assurance of people’s: right to vote and right to dissent. With that I’d like to add a latest name, who is important to remember for the ideals that we’re talking about. The former Chief Justice of South Africa Albesex while addressing a gathering where there were both blacks and whites said that in the functioning of democracy you need two things. One is freedom fighters (or men of good sense) by which he meant not only those who took part in the war but also the people among the whites who were against apartheid and the second he categorized as the lake of imperialism and vested interests. These are the two basic ideas to remember what we expect from democratic Bangladesh. Here, I slightly differ with my good friend Mr. Mintoo. Well Sir, the 1971 war is the basis of whatever we have today whether we call it democracy on the slide but it is not a failed democracy because the Bengalis will not allow it to fail. The basic principles of the war, which brought us independence, have been enshrined in the constitution. I’ll talk of it a little later. Now, I’ll talk of the Judges as Mr. Abdul Awal Mintoo has indexed them. At present, I’m training the judges of Bangladesh. The average Judges are not dishonest - this is the argument I’m making. They don’t want to receive calls from the upper level”.

“We can’t discuss democracy without discussing the constitution because the constitution is the bedrock of whatever we have achieved or we have not achieved. If we have not achieved something it is not the fault of the constitution. I also want to say that it is one of the finest documents. After all, we had a constitution within twelve months. We have problems not because of the constitution but because of the extra-constitutional forces, which have dominated the politics of Bangladesh over fifteen years. For the last fifteen years Bangladesh was under military rulers. But some democratically elected governments are also as bad as military rulers are, because the people who are now sitting in the parliament are the people with money and muscle. They don’t even know the meaning of democracy. They even deny that there was a war of independence in Bangladesh. These are the things that we have to remember when we index the democracy of Bangladesh. You cannot ignore them. I tell you one thing that before the last October 2001 Election, we did a research on the impact of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). We were amazed to see that the farmers consistently contribute about 70 percent growth of GDP in Bangladesh but they don’t know what’s going on in Dhaka. As they contribute to society, this section of the people must be taken into account while indexing democracy in Bangladesh. We have become like Hutus and Tutsis one comes into power killing the other. Is this the democracy we fought for? No, we did not fight for such a democracy. I would like to add one more thing. I think Prof. Anwar Hossain has made a very good point that we had democracy when the Europeans used to live in caves. But who have destroyed that? We, the so-called rulers have destroyed that. One thing you can add to your research work is that there is a sense of impunity for the wrongdoers in our society. The murderers think that they would get impunity and that perception leads them to commit crimes. So, if a democracy allows impunity for the murderers that democracy won’t last long. Regarding the institution of the country, I fully agree with Mr. Mintoo. Every possible institution of the country is under assault. And I’m the director of Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs and there is tremendous political pressure on my institution regardless of whoever comes to power. They want certain things to be done and I withstood with this pressure from both the political parties. As a result, the present ruling party stopped the funds that the government usually gives us. I’ve talked of Judiciary, GDP growth and the Constitution. I think article 70 of the Constitution is sour, which must be gotten rid of. This is one of the finest documents that we have produced but the failure is ours. We could not protect it. In the course of 33 years, 13 amendments have been made. This is a shame for our country. Even now we can make our constitution work if the people make alternative forums. We join hands with you and I pledge my support to you all on behalf of my institution”.

Mr. Abdul Awal Mintoo (President, FBCCI): “First of all, my due respects to my elder brother, Mr. Walliur Rahman. I’d like to say that Bangladeshi people take lots of false prides. And I don’t think we can go any further. The time has come for everybody to say the truth. Now, we are again suffering from contradictions. We did not take the oath to protect the constitution. We are not the people who took the oath. My constitution does not say what my duties and obligations are. But the Indian Constitution tells its citizens what they are supposed to do. Now, we have already made 13 amendments. Out of those 13 amendments, 11 amendments were made to protect personal interests of the rulers. From the 4th to the last, all were made to protect individuals’ interests and their illegal activities. Three amendments alone changed half of the articles of the constitution. Many of the articles were changed more than 10 times. So, what I’m saying basically is that with the false pride people can live for a little while but the time has come for Bangladeshis to look back and say, ‘No, this is wrong.’ What is wrong to say that we need constitutional reform? We took 53 days to finalize the constitution, of which 33 days were used to translate it from Bengali to English while India took three years to finalize its constitution. What I’m saying basically is that there are lots of things in the constitution, which need not be constitutional matters. When a handful of people are responsible for mal-governance, they won’t be corrected unless the review of the constitution is made. Though India took three years to finalize its constitution, they reviewed it six times and added more directions. But what we did is to legalize our illegal power. Now, if we want to develop the society, we will need an instrument that will give us power to develop the society”.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed (Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “I’ll go back to the issue of the promise of democracy. The research sounds to be close to the ideal but it could be counter-intuitive such as when we were conducting a research on sex-workers, they were asked ‘What do you understand by Democracy?’ One said, to her democracy means there is no law in the country, no security to women, not any food in the house and that’s why she is a sex-worker. When they were asked ‘Who are the minorities?’ One answered that the rich people are the minorities. So, we can see how differently they describe the concepts of democracy and minority. So, when we do a cross-sectional survey, we need to remember these things. And what Mr. Mintoo was saying is not missing from the non-political or general people. To non-political people, democracy means corruption, bribery etc. It’s like a nightmare in Bangladesh. So, lots of people are not looking forward to democracy but they are looking forward to something else. When you use this politically loaded concept, you get terrified. Several things have come up and one is that there is still hope that civil society would deliver something. But we never question, ‘What does Civil Society mean?’ The civil society of our country involves only 6 percent of the people and 94 percent of the people are out of it. So, we need to re-conceptualise the notion of civil society. Rabindranath Tagore had, in fact, a different concept when he talked of Puro Samaj or the whole society and he said that puro samaj conflicts with the state. The concept of puro samaj and the concept of the civil society that we have is not the same”.

“Now, I turn to hartalotics. Basically, politics has become hartalotics. The opposition party while it was in position said that they would not call hartals (Strikes). It now has to go for hartals. So, we now think seriously about the mood of protest. What’s the easiest way to signal that things are not working? And there I think we have not been creative enough. We need to think, in fact, what are the other ways. Even in the university where I come from, there were two-month long teachers’ strikes, which is quite unthinkable. I said to the other teachers that before resorting to such a drastic action, we needed to go for a referendum. We have an association but it doesn’t mean that we can go beyond the rights and duties of it. I think the student bodies should also have a referendum before going to take such an action”.

“At present, democracy has become mastanocracy. People have mastans. What can we do to prevent it? There, I think, we lack structure. I give you one example; Dhaka City has a population of 12 to 15 million people with one mayor to look after it, while Singapore City with 3 million people has a Prime Minister. The City Corporation can’t work properly because there are too many people. We need 4 mayors for Dhaka City alone. Such an inadequate structure leads to bribery and corruption in the city corporation office. Bangladesh has a large population of 120 million people and in terms of population it is the eighth largest country in the world but it doesn’t have enough infrastructure to provide services to the people. Coming from Dhaka city, I can cite another good example of the local government. The local government doesn’t work properly. And the structure of the parliament has to be rethought. We can think of a Divisional Parliament. At present one MP represents 3 hundred thousand people. They can’t even shake hands with the people whom they represent. To maintain communication with the people, they have to use middlemen and these middlemen are mastans. Thus, democracy has become mastanocracy”.

“The last point that I want to discuss is engendering democracy. Engendering democracy is a vital point in the context of Bangladesh. During the period of the last regime, there was a movement for women’s direct election and the then government rejected this. However, the feminist bodies have remained silent since then. This sort of giving up the movements half way is not a good practice. So, the mood of protest has to be reconsidered”.

Mr. Mijarul Quayes (Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “I think as we look at the whole question of indexing democracy and the state of democracy, we are talking about an aspirational notion of democracy. Those parameters have to be there however fuzzy they are. From the beginning of the session what we are hearing is basically profiling miscarriages of democracy. It’s dangerous, perhaps, to mistake the miscarriages of democracy with democracy. And it’s doubly dangerous to index miscarriages as the indexing of democracy. I’m cautious at that. I begin with direct democracy-the size of the polity that Prof. Imtiaz has mentioned. When you have a bigger polity than the city-state, which has franchised citizens and disfranchised slaves, you must have representative democracy. The trick is what is the process of representation and how inclusive is the notion of citizenship and how inclusive is franchise. With better the education level in the western countries, representation with less miscarriage is slightly better than that of ours. Now, with the universal franchise that we have, when people go to cast their vote, do they know what they are expected to do? Are they properly informed? In a country with such a low education level like Bangladesh, does it work? Are there other interventions that are needed to be made? Again, when you talk about representative democracy, you do not mean 100 percent participation. The pattern of decision-making is majoritarian. From this state of democracy a polity needs to leap to a constitutional democracy where the rights of the minority groups are protected by the constitution. And I thought what is missing in our country is the constitutional guarantees that are essential for modern-day democracy. In a survey when people are asked about the notion of democracy, what s/he comes back is a reading of the perception of democracy that cannot impact the aspirational democracy or the theoretical discourse on democracy except the identification of the miscarriages. So, it’s important that the vocabulary will be the same for the surveyors, researchers, theoreticians and the people that are covered because otherwise when the people are asked about democracy they would read about government and when they say government, they equal it with bribes and corruption and the surveyors will equal it with democracy. My reading is that people do not confuse bribery and corruption with democracy, it is confused with the state and government. Many people look to democracy as the answer to these miscarriages. The surveyors should be careful so that the people might not confuse bribery and corruption with democracy”.

“Going back to Tagore, I’d say when Tagore talked about puro samaj, he did not mean the whole society rather he meant the urban society or nagar samaj and again it goes back to direct democracy. We have participatory governance at the local level despite the bigger size of the polity. And I think what is essential when we look at the whole question of parliament today is that MPs are supposed to legislate but we don’t have legislatures rather we have people who are more interested in development and funds for the region. I think it’s important to balance the Westminster system of parliament with a representative local government. And therefore, the chairman and the members of the District Council have to be different from the MPs. Unless this separation is done, we are in a soup”.

“Let me share my personal view with you. I think, the problem is not much with the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive rather with the separation of the Executive from the Legislature. An MP is not elected to build roads rather he is elected for more lofty business of legislation. And there we don’t need more than 300 people rather what we need is more representative bodies at the local government level”.

“Again, regarding the miscarriages of democracy, I’d like to say miscarriages occur because of the confusion between the rule of law and the rule by law. Rule of law means there are laws and problems which are solved by these laws and on the other hand, rule by law means problems are solved by an ordinance or by adopting new laws. That is where the biggest dishonesty in governance lies; opting for rule by law instead of rule of law”.

“Mr. Chair, I can’t conclude before saying some words about the birth of our country. The birth of Bangladesh was premised on two fundamental principles. One was the aspiration for democracy and the other was an inclusive non-communal vision of our country. The proclamation of independence begins on the premise that elections were held to frame a constitution and that is very important. And it goes on to say that the declaration of independence was made with three objectives in mind - to ensure the people of Bangladesh equality, freedom and social justice. Have they been transformed in our constitution? I think, they have. Have we been able to translate them in our political life, into our institutions? Perhaps not. So, there are aspirations and we need to index to what extent we can touch those aspirations. Thank you”.

Dr. Binayak Sen (Senior Research Fellow, BIDS): “I’d like to raise a few questions to better understand the focus of the project since I missed the morning session. For indexing, let’s first take the issue of what could have been an interesting research agenda. I think, Prof. Imtiaz mentioned it by referring to some case studies. I just want to start from that point. If we take political liberalism as a philosophy, we can see that democracy stands on two principles which are equal liberties and social justice that emphasize the maximum benefits given to least disadvantaged section of the society. So, the respondents must be asked what their notion of equal liberties and social justice is. Questions regarding freedom of choice of occupation, freedom of moving from one occupation to another and freedom of getting institutional opportunity can be asked. This would be an interesting research agenda rather than defining democracy like political philosophers such as Habermas”.

“If it is indexing the democratisation of the society, then it does not just focus on the electoral institutions, or the core political institutions but also the other non-political, social institutions. I got a hint from Imtiaz’s remarks when he spoke about the governance of Dhaka, mastanocracy, hartalotics or debates on the meaning of civil society. All these mean the indexing of the whole society. Then the questionnaire must be broadened and the other social institutions would come under scrutiny. Again, the emphasis would be on how people define the attainment in terms of democratisation”.

“Regarding the question of language, I think it’s very important. The common people convey different meanings to a concept. Their meanings can be totally different from the academic version of the concept. And that would be an interesting finding itself. And that per se might not create any problem in the research as long as we understand there is a politics of concept building. Different social classes may have different meanings of a particular concept and I don’t believe that a concept has only one meaning. I think it would be interesting to see in the survey how people categorize various institutions of the state. The last point I want to make is that there is a work conducted by Dipa Narayan going on for rating different state institutions, say, in a score scale from 1 to 5. So, the people are asked how do you rate the police in your society. Thus, you can rate both the regulatory and development institutions of the state. The interesting findings of that survey were that India’s main problems emerge from regulatory institutions such as the court, police and others. So, I think similar things can be tried here also. I think in the questionnaire there might be a module for rating different state institutions as well as non-state institutions such as NGOs. I’ll stop here. Thank you”.