Day Two, 28th March, 2004

“Those who are new for the day, the theme of the dialogue won’t be a difficult one and those who were present in the first day, they can equate better. As a launching theme, the issue was well discussed and we want your reflections on what would be the outcomes and future of democracy”.

Ambassador Walliur Rahman (Director, BILIA): “Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a few thoughts on the Constitution of Bangladesh. We have to understand the constitution being a friend to it. At that time, just after the devastation of war and at the mid-stop of a devastated economy, our first priority was to establish law and order. The immediate task was to ensure security, food, and rehabilitation: of women, who were raped and others. After 33 years, if anybody says that the constitution should be scrapped, I want to oppose that with the passion of patriotism. But we can do some amendments in the context of the modern age. Moreover, the role of the government and the opposition in democracy cannot be revived without the ideal implementation of the constitution. To ensure credibility the government has to ensure: security of the people, fulfill the basic needs, rehabilitate the raped women and settle other embryonic issues”.

“The secular nature of our country is the spirit that makes our existence strong for a thousand years. We have to stop any kind of communal rivals in this part of the world. Gujarat is a good example of limiting the communal riot to a single province. The success of the Indian government was not to spread the poison in the other provinces of India. Gujarat was not allowed to be repeated in India. A participant noted that though the Indian government succeeded in containing the riot, it is condemnable that it did not allow international human bodies to probe into the matter”.

“We must emphasize on political institution building to index democracy. Separating the Judiciary from Executive is one of the key important issues. Judges in the lower court adopt illegal means. We can buy bails with money and easily get freedom. Poor salaries, socio-economic inequity etc. are the main reasons for this corruption. To remove these negative aspects of democracy it is necessary to index the democracy of Bangladesh”.

Dr. Munim K. Barai (Associate Prof., Leading University): “In my view, enough focus has not been given in yesterday’s discussion on the trend of our voting culture and the process of our election, especially the election of our Members of Parliament etc. In Bangladesh, we have to think very seriously about the people who come to the people after being elected”.

“It is a depressing part of our democracy that is pointed out after criminalisation of politics, commercialisation or businessization of politics is going on in our national politics. I am talking so because of a report published in the Daily Inqilab. After the last National Election (2001), the EC (Election Commission) was asked for Return Papers from the elected MPs. Among the 300 MPs, 76 did not return their papers including our Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader. 126 of the MPs showed business as their occupation in their Return Papers, 8 said that they were politicians and 2 said that their occupation is that they are MPs. The participation of businessmen in our politics has increased from the 1991 to the 2001 election. We can say this that the revolution of democracy occurred in our country in 1991, but through this revolution we gave businessmen a chance to get into direct politics. A businessman would not perhaps check the increasing price of goods for their own benefit that causes sufferings to the general people. From the last election of 2001, nearly 30 billion taka has been transferred from the poor to a few hundred rich people of our country. That’s why a question always arises in our minds that why are we selecting a businessman as MP? And we must study the businessization or commercialisation of politics”.

Prof. Dilara Chowdhury (Jahangir Nagar University): “I want to focus my discussion on what the gentleman has said about the criminalization or commercialisation of politics in Bangladesh and the issues of corruption in our society are going to be a serious threat for the entire society. One of the main reasons of criminalization or commercialisation of politics is the absence of transparency in our political parties. The source of the donations they receive is always in the dark and that pollutes our democratic political culture. Moreover, registration in the Election Commission for the political parties is an important task for maintaining a democratic culture. I think this process had started during the Ershad regime. People used power and donate money in their political campaigns and once elected they started only to look after their own interests. Both political parties in our country have the same problems. How people can be opportunists and how leaders are running from one camp to another camp was very clear in the last few elections. Candidates are buying nomination with money. The unholy alliance is formed between people with political power and people with economic power, which is a direct threat to democracy. So people with political power are elected in the parliament and give guarantees to the interests of the people with economic power and the general people suffers in that. Local businessmen turn into politicians and opportunism comes to the fore. The shocking nature of our politicians of changing camps continuously also poses a negative image for our democracy. Corruption gets ramified with the involvement of businessmen into power politics. So, from where the funding comes is important”.

Dr. Munim K. Barai (Assistant Prof., Leading University): “My question was why the people, being aware of everything, vote for those businessmen? Those persons have shadowy background, who gathered money from shadowy sources and then utilized it for fulfilling political purposes. Knowing all this, why do people cast their vote in favour of these?”

Prof. Dilara Chowdhury (Jahangir Nagar University): “In spite of knowing all these things and suffering after elections, general people vote for them. Bangladeshi electorates are very sophisticated and they didn’t fail to cast their vote because of their consciousness about this particular ‘right’. The electorates have become more sophisticated now. Now a days the electorates vote for money and achieve power at the party level and want to fulfil their own interest”.

Prof. Amena Mohsin (Chair, Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “I want to raise the issue of the importance of the Armed Forces in the of future democracy of Bangladesh. While indexing democracy the condition should be judged carefully. Till 1999 all the regime changes occurred in our country due to the action or inaction of the army. Inaction is also termed as action for Armed Forces. Despite the 13 years’ of parliamentarian democracy, our political parties still want to keep the armed forces in favour. They have consciously chosen the policy not to antagonize the army. Even the opposition requested the forces not to cooperate with the government a few years back to support their policy of non-cooperation. There is no separate civil personality to hold the Ministry of Defence. The Prime Minister handles the Defence Ministry. Moreover the retired Generals are joining the political parties and they also keep linkages with the forces. In the last election, eight Generals got nominations from political parties and if they are refused by one party, they are whole-heartedly welcomed by the other party. This is a very dangerous trend in democracy of our country”.

“The Armed Forces Day is of special importance linked towards our glorious Liberation War. There should be more civilian participation in this sort of a program that removes the distance between the armed forces and the civilians. I found that this program has been monopolized by the armed forces. It is more appropriate to celebrate it as People’s Day instead of the Armed Forces Day, which will be a more combined approach and a non-politicised one. Moreover the internal clash of the armed forces division is an utmost issue in the future of democracy. I want to know from my Indian friends that how come so many movie stars became involved in the political system?”

Brigadier (Retd.) Shahedul Anam: “We have democracy every five years in our country, during the time of election. Though it is often discussed that Bangladesh is not even ready for democracy, I think we are the most democratically oriented part of the subcontinent. According to me, democracy is more a practice than a culture. Despite, the monolithic culture of our political parties and absence of decency, we accept this culture. Bangladeshis experienced many political shifts like turning a popular government into one party rule within a night and the opposition’s denial to participate in the parliament etc. Our nationals are confused to elect their representatives. The worst practices are going on because the elected persons are forgetting to take care of them. Here in our country a conscious intellectual practice should be introduced to choose the proper representatives. Our electorates are well aware of what they are doing. But what is emerging in our recent democracy is the rise of muscle power and money power. The poor people failed to continue their franchise. The men elected in the parliament are not doing his duty”.

“Political parties practice how to favour the armed forces. We accuse this practice that gives or sets an autocratic outlook to the Force. The autocratic behaviour of the army is exhibited. This particular sector is seemed to be a trap of power. That’s why no separate minister is there and the work of the ministry is just nothing but duplication. In the last election, the Awami League nominated 9 retired armed personnel to ease their past tendency of avoidance towards the armed persons’ inclusion in their party. They wanted to show that they are not antagonistic towards the army. Our political parties have the tendency to nominate the retired army personnel to keep their control over the Armed Forces and supervise the army not to cross their line of limit. In the case of the future of democracy in Bangladesh, the role of the army is unpredictable. Moreover, comparing Pakistan’s political condition, Bangladesh is in a far better position. Our military should possess such a mental disposition as not to be involved in politics in the future. Unfortunately absolute changes in political power aspiration still didn’t take place in the Army”.

Prof. Dilara Chowdhury (Jahangir Nagar University): “Do you think that the placating of the army is because they are capable of entering into politics forcefully?”

Brigadier (Retd.) Shahedul Anam: “I think political parties know that they can’t use the army, so they take such measures so that they can use the army in their favour”.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed (Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “In the last few years, the Armed Forces were engaged in removing traffic jams, Operation Clean Heart to remove terrorism etc. This out of track works changed their structure. Why is the army reluctant to get involved in the mainstream politics? So involvement in the Peacekeeping Operations is thought as an arena to make our armed forces busy in a constructive work”.

Ambassador Walliur Rahman (Director, BILIA): “With the reference to the Armed Forces day, there should be sheer involvement of civilians in this sort of programs. The direct involvement of the army in the politics reflects the expression of weakness of the political leaders, civil society, and others. Bangladesh has experiences of misusing the army in some occasions. Peacekeeping operations are a great opportunity for our soldiers. The involvement of the army in such operations builds an international positive impression for us, not a ‘destructive’ impression”.

Dr. Smruti Smita Pattanaik (Visiting Research Fellow, Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “Is there any similarity between the Armed Forces Division of Bangladesh and theNational Security Council in Pakistan? To what extent the Armed Forces influence the decision making in foreign policy formulation?”

Mir Lutful Kabir Saadi (Bureau Chief, Impact): “I saw a different feeling among the Pakistanis at the time of the military take over there. Most people appreciated that because they had suffered a lot in the last regime, commenting that ‘Nawaz’ became the King of the country. My question to the Indian participants here is that why the Indian military is reluctant to come into power?”

Mr. Mijarul Quayes (Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “Power and the sense of authority is a very natural phenomenon. Politics is also used as a tool of power showdown. Armed Forces division is not a manifestation of this kind of authority. Our history of military ruling says that Ershad formed the Supreme Command Headquarters and he was also the Commander in Chief, supreme to take decisions. Later in the government of parliamentarian democracy, it was given to the Prime Minister’s office. The internal problem of the Defence Secretary with the Principal Staff Officer created some duplication of work in some cases, which is not expected. Our constitution clearly states the role of the army. The problem lies not in the civil-military relations but in political-military relations. An opposition to a political government should not be a military form of government. To stop overstepping of power, everybody should acquire a clear perception of power distribution. We have not addressed what kind of defence structure we need. Our forces have done remarkably well in different sectors but still they have to learn how to exist under a democratic system of governance. To regain the shattered objective of our liberation war, the army should be built as a strong organization”.

“We are not voting nationally but voting in a constituency and that’s why just getting a majority-minority vote a person is elected in the national parliament. At present, there are three hundred constituencies in Bangladesh and the party who wins more seats in the national election forms the government. It is an interesting finding that the opposition got more votes than its counterpart on the national basis. So, the system should be rethought”.

“We must clarify our standpoint on the conflict of interests. To prepare a Budget for the army expenditures and other expenditures is an important issue for the politicians and obviously for the country people”.

“In most democratic countries we see that the institutions are continuously competing for power. We see it in the USA and the UK and considering that the army of Bangladesh also tries to do that. Mainstream politicians should get concerned about their duties to limit the army’s role within its constitutional limit. The strong democratic institutions are those, which are able to control democracy. Unless there is an alleged cohesion among the democratic establishments, it is quite impossible to control the army within its limit. It is not also good news for the military that the political parties or political institutions are using them. The Army should also be perfectly committed not to cross the constitutional limits. In case of failure of one political party, another political party will take over the power but definitely not the armed forces of a state. The Indian army may not take over power but they still are very powerful in all aspects. The civil-military relations are strong compared to other regions and also the rate of using force into brutal insurgency is also very high in India”.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed (Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “Why people vote in the elections particularly in this region? I can give you two reasons. Firstly, the voters were convinced by the candidate’s pre-election impression and go to voting to assure further assistance. This is something also true for South Asian national politics. When a ‘babu’ or a gentleman goes to village people, he feels very important. How could the poor village people refuse that ‘gentleman’ whose grandfather was looking after his grandfather? That relation is still going on. Secondly, in this region there are very few well-funded public festivals participated by all. Election is identified like a festival that runs for a month. One of the important reasons, why people in this region vote, is that they want to feel the power, want to influence it or want to be related to it. There is deliverability of democracy that brings people for voting. Symbiotic relationship between the people and the candidates also influences the issue. For future democracy, relating the general people with the concept of power is important. This is also necessary for the legitimisation of the power structure”.

Mr. Mijarul Quayes (Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “The reasons stated above cannot answer why people vote those corporate candidates and why they vote for the Awami League and BNP?”

Dr. Iftekharujjaman (Executive Director, Bangladesh Freedom Foundation): “I would never be interested in voting if Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia personally call me because I had a bitter experience in my family. My mother, a passionate voter found her vote previously cast by someone else. She became sad and from that day onwards the family never cast their votes. This is a part of the electoral malpractice. The electoral malpractices like false voting during elections are a part of democracy of our country and some other countries in this region. There are bad patches in our political institutions and those who influence us to use power negatively. Removing those malpractices is essential to pacify the future of democracy”.

“I want to comment on military influence in foreign policy formulation. Historically the armed forces’ personnel have contributed in foreign policy formulation in this country and some other countries in the world at least for two important reasons. Firstly, retired army persons are being recruited as Ambassadors. I think there’s a tradition of recruiting Ambassadors in formulating policies. Secondly, to meet the domestic (national) interest and security, the armed force have a significant contribution. Because of the linkages between defence and security related issues with foreign policy, we see their involvement in many countries. By contributing towards the National Security Policy formulation, they indirectly play an important role in foreign policy making. I agree with one issue that we need the army in our country but their use should be much more specified. We have to acknowledge the importance of the armed forces. We have taken the example of India. The present role of the Bangladesh army is quite impressive. Moreover a constructive civil-military relationship should be prioritised in indexing democracy. The mind-set the military people possess should be reformed. Otherwise, the most privileged section of the society will be a further case of failure of our political leaders”.

Dr. Munim K. Barai (Associate Professor, Leading University): “I am again taking the floor to throw my comment on the role of the army or their possibility to take over power again or what should be their role in the future of democracy. We easily observe a clear difference in the public psyche between the two countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Pakistani people welcomed the capture of power by General Parvez Mosharraf and they were seriously frustrated with the Nawaz regime. In Bangladesh the scenario is a bit different. From 1958 to 1971, especially in 1971 in our liberation war the armed forces did contribute a lot but that cannot suppress the sacrifices made by the non-uniformed people. Sharing statistics, only 3 lakh armed personnel out of the total 33 lakh martyrs died in the war. The larger portion of the people killed were not in uniform. Even the major minority of this country, the Hindus were the major sufferers at the initial stage of the war. In June 1971, the first operation in my thana occurred and the Pakistanis brutally killed 57 people. All of them were Hindus. The people in uniforms still do not carry a good connotation to the Hindus of Bangladesh. From then onwards we have experiences of two Generals’ power occupation, may not have used the killing approach, but were repressive manner. In 1990, we had experienced how the general people set the army back into the barracks and that was a victory. We have tested that we can set the army back, which is not possible for Pakistan. In our independent Bangladesh, the minority community has faced a direct or indirect repressive zeal from the two armed rulers and also others on them. Without foreign powers’ blessings our army cannot come into the mainstream power politics of the country and secondly, I would also agree that the armed forces have a role in formulating policy directly or indirectly. They can show their red eyes from the back shoulder of the civilian government”.

“Referring to Mr. Quayes, if he recommended that the formation of BEPZA is squeezing the government and bureaucratic competency then the matter can be personified as why we need a dentist or heart specialist instead of a medicine doctor”.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed (Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “Why Bangladesh should be different from others? We know the example of India, Pakistan and even Sri Lanka and their army’s contribution in foreign policy formulation. We know whose brainchild Indo-Israel policy is? Since this is the only country that has signed the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and other treaties related to armed matters. I think there is a positive sign that a united civil-military relationship can work successfully in our country”.

Ambassador Walliur Rahman (Director, BILIA): “It has already been 100 years. Generals and Admirals in the USA were appointed as national Security Advisors and there are other countries, which have the same tradition. Now in India, it has never happened in history. The example of Pakistan is totally different. The case study of Pakistan should not be taken as an ideal for indexing the democracy of Bangladesh. Moreover, the institutional and political factors of these two countries are absolutely different. The Peoples Republic of China was anxious on the Taiwanese trade mission in Bangladesh. They thought is there any army’s role in formulating a policy like this? I have experience in formulating policies in the military regime. I always had to inform the Chief and in the case of Peace Keeping Operations, I had to inform him from New York. Any decision for the benefit of the people ‘Pro Buno Publico’ could be welcomed for foreign policy formulation, though it had originated from the army. It is something for the good of the people. If the role of army is pro buno publico, then there is no problem, but the issue is distinct”.

Dr. Smruti Smita Pattanaik (Visiting Research Fellow, Dept. of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “I want to clarify my position and asking to know to what extent the army had played a role in foreign policy formulation, not to know whether army has a role or not”.

A. K. M. Abdul Sabur (Research Director, BIISS): “Just to Mr. Barai’s reference, the issue of foreign blessings in martial law is important, even in Pakistan we see the American blessing to Pervez Mosharraf. The Pakistani intellectuals were not sad on the issue. If we see the agenda of military rulers in Pakistan it was more an American agenda reflected by the Generals of Pakistan. There is a basic difference in the institutionalism of military in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now in the context of our country, it is quite impossible to think of a military take over of power. But in the long run we cannot say that there is a visible guarantee that the army would not take over power. It is quite impossible to recommend this. The political culture and military institutionalism and psyche of the general people in Bangladesh are bit different and they think the military role is humiliating for the nation. Even a part of the army thinks like that. The Indian case is different because the Indian civil government has enormous control over the Indian army. There is a striking difference between the Indian army with others in the subcontinent. They never took any attempt to rule over the political leaders. The institution there is capable to absorb a civilian minister. Coming to Bangladesh we have to still go a long way to bring a constructive civil-military relation. In any competitive society, even in the USA, different organizations have different aspirations to show their affectivity in power. So the question comes who will control them? We have some major difficulties in controlling. Until there is an elite cohesion on the overall governing process of the country, there are possibilities of power capture. The political forces will remain morally and psychologically blackmailed by the circumstances if they fail to control it. That is also not good news for the military because a tiny faction will make wrong use of the institution. There may be an impression that it can be used”.

Mr. Mijarul Quayes (Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “In the time of Ershad’s regime 50 percent of the foreign service was recruited from non-professionals and 20 percent from armed forces, 20 percent from the civil services and 10 percent from eminent personalities. Later in 1991 the number was cut down to 30 percent from non Foreign Service quota. Now the balance is maintained a 70-30 to professional and non-professional persons in case of recruiting. I want to say that the armed forces have a mere role in the foreign policy formulation of Bangladesh. They have a role as the Ministry of livestock has a role in the foreign policy formulation. I’m talking about the formal structure of Foreign Service. We have no such interest of overlapping the defence and Foreign Service. I sat on lots of defence related Treaty Conventions. We do not yet have a formal institutional interface in formulating those technical treaties. Except the PKO issue which has got an excellent institutional frame. Basically the armed forces have only the arena for technical input in the dialogues like the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), Disarmament issues etc. But unfortunately we are not having it as a formalized organizational interface in the ongoing process of policy formulations except the discussion of Peacekeeping Operations. We deserve the rights in getting inputs from the technical experts. For example, in case of a disarmament issue how to cut the stockpile of the arms, we need an effective interface between the Ministry of Defense and Foreign Affairs”.

“Referring to the worst experience of Dr. Iftekhar’s mother, I want to say that this is a very common phenomenon in South Asia. The looting of ballot boxes during the time of election has also occurred. The role of the army is to ensure security but not to take over political power. The army should move into the constitutional framework. It is the defence force of the republic not any counterpart of the civil government or civil bureaucracy. The alternative to a political government should never be a military government. The competencies of government are day-by-day squeezing because of decentralizing the Departments especially Trade. The transition is taking place from a control mode of government to a facilitation mode”.

M. Shafiullah (Former Ambassador & Senior Research Fellow, Bangladesh Enterprise Institute): “The impact of the liberation war of 1971 placed our army in a different setting from the region’s other armed forces. But till 1975, the political leadership was so strong that the army had virtually no role in politics. After 1975, the army contributed directly in the policy formulations and amended some of the core issues of the liberation war. It gave different dimensions to foreign policy as well as the national policy of Bangladesh. After the 1990 election, the democratic leadership came out in the government. It is very difficult to say who are influencing policy formulation and to what extent without much study. Everyone has its own role in any country. National policy must not contradict with others. In Bangladesh, the armed forces directly contributed in issues like national security or defence and foreign policy. So it is quite difficult to bring back this institution in its particular position of constitutional limit. Now the issue of security is also different. It is more human security than the traditional one. We must protect our people from poverty and other inhumane conditions. The army can provide discipline and a way of good governance but they should not dominate or get directly involved in policy formulation, which is beyond their jurisdiction. The role of the politicians is also important. In case of malpractices of power, we may experience a power vacuum. It is the politicians who are coming to power in course of time to rule us. The power vacuum that is the absence of politicians from the power structure should be taken care of. Otherwise others would mess it up. The culture is when a political party is not satisfied with the result of the election, it starts boycotting the parliament. This may produce room for non-political actors to enter into the power structure. As a very important part to retain the sovereignty of our country, the army should be taken care by the politicians or in a bigger sense, by the civil institutions. Moreover, each political party promises to rebuild the army according to the age demand for getting favour, but what about the police? The police force should also be counted as a vessel of democracy. The Police Force should be trained enough to uphold the concept of human rights for future democracy, not as a factor of violating it. Finally, the future of democracy in Bangladesh is defined on the activities of politicians, their level of knowledge, their level of commitment etc”.

Prof. Suhas Palshikar (SDSA Principal Investigator, Lokniti-CSDS): “I am tempted to project some of my observations for the future of democracy. Why people vote in this region? The reason of festivity is partially right. There are other people who have different aspirations on getting tuned to power and possess some relationship with the nominated person for future benefits. They want to influence the over all system by taking part directly into the system. We would fail in our analysis if we don’t capture this. Sometime there are some inner convictions among the people for the deliverability of democracy. It actually takes them to the polling stations. Even in India after changing the composition of the legislation, the symbiotic relationship between the voters and the nominated is increased and there are more numbers going to cast their votes. Fare numbers of people still turn out and go to cast their votes digesting the terrorists’ threats. People are convinced firstly as they are getting related with power and secondly legitimising the structure of power into the society. I believe the military express and acquire its power differently but not by acquiring political power. It should be in a framework. The show of power in brutalisation of state sponsored insurgencies is the projection of serious misunderstanding between the social and political organization. This is a threat for the future of democracy”.

Brigadier (Retd.) Shahedul Anam: “Access to information about the military is one of the impediments to the improvement of the civil military relations. Armed forces are not a full-fledged Ministry. It goes to the Ministry of Defence. There is a good deal of duplicity at work. Bangladesh was invited in 1980, when there was a quasi-civilian government in power. Still we have a colonial structure of army. The influence of the military is not severe in foreign policy formulation and I agree on the technical inputs. I’m surprised with the suggestion of army’s separation from national or defence policy. I do not agree with that. The army has a lot to do in this arena. The matter of diversity and vastness of works are the reasons why the Indian army is reluctant to take over power”.

Prof. Sarwar Murshed (University of Dhaka): “There is no way of denying that the army is a powerful institution. It is holy and sacred. There was a time when people doubted the army about their nature being untouchable. Nearly 30 percent of the budget of this poor country is going for defence spending. We have a very dysfunctional parliament. It does not have the power to scrutinize the defence budget. If we really turn into as failed state, who then will take the responsibility of our failed leadership? Thank you very much”.

Prof. Dalim Chandra Barman (Chair, Department of Conflict & Peace Studies, University of Dhaka): “I am still hopeful about the future of democracy. I also want to say that only the politicians are not responsible for blurring democracy but democracy itself is responsible. We should also take the responsibility of keeping democracy alive. Secondly, I want to say that the views of the military can be taken for the betterment of the system but their direct involvement must be protected. That will perhaps bring some good for the nation. Thank you very much”.

Dr. Iftekharujjaman (Executive Director, Bangladesh Freedom Foundation): “This is a general remark and I agree with my Indian colleague. In Bangladesh, we are internalising something in our society, which is extremely dangerous. We are taking a value that when we have a headache, chop the head. The criminal activities are increasing in an innumerable manner. We are expecting civil society but this civil society is impacted by brutalisation. How come this people who have struggled a lot to get their independence are ruined day by day due to the negative forces of the society? I’m afraid that I have no answer how to minimize this brutality of the society”.

Mr. Mijarul Quayes (Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “Some diversified changes are followed in the army like the uniform. The reason was to remove the mental pressure of the Pakistan army image from people’s minds. Binding consultation of citizens with respect to state personnel and policy for the protection of citizens are necessary. Ideal democracy is the political system where all kinds of facilities are available. Democracy incorporates culture. It raises consciousness about rights”.

Ambassador Walliur Rahman (Director, BILIA): “Referring to 1975, the army chief of command did not go to the second in command, democracy got a blow and it declined. Fortunately we have recovered that. When we try to index democracy in Bangladesh, we have to take certain matters. Since it has an ideal nature, that’s why it is the ideal form of government”.

Indexing democracy of a particular region or of a particular state like Bangladesh, the general western perception of democracy would not satisfy the whole context. A result of a survey from the national elections that took place from 1970 onwards reflects some important notions in indexing democracy for this country particularly. Consecutive numbers states these:

•	Minority votes in our country are totally distributed and they are not a kind of vote bank for any political party.
•	Not a singular political party can form a unitary government in Bangladesh without forming alliances.
•	People are becoming gradually conscious in choosing a good candidate.
•	The rise of extremist elements in the electoral process of Bangladesh. It is not only a political factor but also a social factor.
•	The swing votes (18-20 percent) are now deciding who is going to win the election.
•	The electoral system in Bangladesh has to be changed. The Election Commission has to be totally independent. Both the major political parties should be cooperative. The control of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat over the Election Commission reflects bleakness about the future of democracy.

While indexing democracy, we all have to shed light on the above stated points very carefully. The roles of institutions play a very important part in exercising a perfect democracy and to index it.

Prof. Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah (Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka): “In addition to what I said yesterday, I want to add something. The role of intelligence and force is important in shaping democracy. They play covertly for democracy. Now this covert game should be detected whether it is positive or negative for democracy”.

Dr. A. K. Azad (Senior Research Fellow, BIISS): “Alliances in forming government is a very natural phenomenon even in some other parts of South Asia. Money is the thing to decide who will win in the election. This has totally turned into a business oriented phenomenon”.

Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): “I would like to thank everybody for raising such a wide range of ideas in case of indexing democracy. A map of the things was discussed and a lot of things were absent. I’m not sure what they mean. In the context of Bangladesh, is really the civil-military relationship an expression of public discourse? Discussing on the democracy of Bangladesh, do the matters of military come in the forefront? There are many other indicators that show the perspectives of human development in a country like Bangladesh. Debate on the constitution was very important, and that has to be counted very seriously in case of indexing democracy. The context when the constitution was produced, even the shorter period of its construction and the amendments done by the parliaments – all these issues are very important considering the indexation of democracy. From the democratic theory perspective, one needs to understand why the changes occurred in the constitution. The design of the constitution cannot be avoided, may be it is overloaded or undermined and few miscarriages are there in the constitution. We need to understand the distortions of it and find out whether our constitution is the strength of democracy or its failure. In the real public debate on democracy what would be the position of the civilian-army relationship in the context of Bangladesh? We have talked about the causes of miscarriages in Bangladesh’s democracy but did not discuss how the situation can be recovered. The challenge is not that we are a poor nation or we have to go long for framing democracy; but the problem is the distortion created in the process of indexing. The real debate of Bangladesh’s democracy is the human poverty and security. I think civil-military relation is not that much of importance. The Party System was not discussed, which is the foremost important thing while indexing democracy”.

“We will begin to see the reports coming from different countries and then make comparisons in the level of overall South Asia”.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed (Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka): “To some extent the civil-military relationship comes under a vanguard position and in this context the venue of the dialogue and the persons presented in the Dialogue are the reasons of this kind of deviation of information. The first day was fully devoid of army related discussion and the second day was not like that. The reason is that the second day’s discussion was on the future of democracy. There is a possibility of threat from the army considering the future of our democracy and it has to do with the current dysfunctionalily of the parliament. The particular time period is also responsible for this because the domestic political situation is not so good at this particular moment”.
“The issues that came up throughout the two days’ dialogue are:

•	Civil-Military relationship and Military and Democracy – It is Bangladesh where a military ruler allowed multiparty democracy after our independence. So the scenario is quite different from the other parts of South Asia.
•	Constitution is a definite issue for indexation of democracy.
•	The Election Commission is also a very important issue. The neutrality of the Commission in getting funds from the government matters to democracy.
•	Alliance politics is also an important issue that came up in the dialogue, which is thoroughly observed in the context of Bangladesh’s politics in indexing democracy.
•	The issue of Ethnic minorities and Religious minorities came and their absence in the electoral and overall political system were indicated.
•	The civil society, which is 6 percent of the total population, could be considered. The composition of civil society is very polarized and sometimes very violent. This is mostly seen in the rural civil society. So, this particular issue should be also considered.

These are the points that are extracted from the last two days’ Dialogue. This is just the beginning of a two and half years’ exercise. There are lots of surveys and other research activities. The commission mostly welcomes all the persons to contribute and 2005 is the time, when the democracy index will be publicized and hopefully it will be a heavy weight drop. Thank you all”.