Threats to democratic development in South Asia intensifying

April 27, 2016, 12:00 pm

Bangladesh police suspect banned Islamist outfits are behind the recent murders of liberal activists - AFP

The international community's and other quarters' fixation with 'emerging economies', however, could have the effect of governments claiming to be democratic in the global South, ignoring or playing down the need for democratic development with secularism as a cornerstone. Countries of this region, such as Bangladesh, are certainly scoring high from the viewpoint of economic growth. More and more major business houses in this region, including some from Sri Lanka, are investing in business projects in Bangladesh in view of the promise shown by the latter as a growth and IPO destination.

The brutal killing of Professor Rezaul Karim Siddique in Rajshahi, Bangladesh on Saturday, apparently by anti-secular extremists should place not only Bangladesh but South Asia on the alert. This is because the gruesome murder was the veritable writing on the wall that political and religious extremism is growing very disturbingly in this region, which is also glorified by the international community as being home to a number of ‘emerging economies’. The latter are seen widely as role models for the rest of the world’s economies.

However, is ‘emerging’ status synonymous with democratic development? If Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, in the Mahinda Rajapaksa years, for instance, are anything to go by, this need not necessarily be so. A country could enjoy all the features which are believed to be characteristic of ‘emerging economies’ and still be plagued by conditions which militate against democratic development, such as, religious extremism and the fierce parading of identity politics. Since the killing of the university Don, two gay rights activists have been done to death in Bangladesh, pointing to an upsurge in violence against those being seen as in some way 'different' to those conceptualized as the majority community.

The foregoing begs the question: what is democratic development? This issue is yet to be taken up and explored fully by even Sri Lanka’s universities and think tanks but it ought to be plain to see that a country notable for democratic development would not only be working steadily towards the equal empowerment of persons and groups, on the basis of principles and institutions typical of representative governance, but would be also doing so on a secular basis.

The latter condition is a principal catalyst in the democratic process and it essentially stands for the firm separation of religion and politics. If secularism is to thrive in a country, one would not be having governments favouring and empowering this or that religious identity group on the basis of the belief that these groups have prior claims over the allegiance, attention and resource allocation of governments, for example. We would have none of this in a country marked by democratic development.

In a country notable for democratic development, while religious freedom would be a solid reality, it would not be considered obligatory for governments of such countries to foster this or that religion on the belief that they enjoy some sort of unquestioned and entrenched privileges in the state. This would be a total violation of democratic principles and values. In other words, religious considerations and the political process simply should not mix in a country which is home to democratic development. On the other hand, governments standing for democratic development would ensure that equality in every respect flourishes within their state boundaries.

While Bangladesh, under an Awami League administration in particular, is unlikely to pander to this or that religious identity group, it is a fact that the forces of political and religious extremism are active in Bangladesh. Prof. Siddique’s and the gay rights activists' killings are the latest evidence to emerge that the threats to secularism are strong in Bangladesh. That is, minority identities and rights of any sort are not going to be tolerated by those who see themselves as representing majority rights and privileges. Needless to say, such positions are not endorsed by the Bangladesh government. But to the extent to which such extremism is not contained, to the same degree would intolerance, religious fanaticism and divisive identity politics thrive in Bangladesh and elsewhere. But democratic development, as understood here, is the answer to extremism in all its manifestations.

However, from the above point of view, there is a glaring democratic development deficit even in Sri Lanka. In these times when constitutional reform is being spoken of very audibly by the Lankan authorities, attention needs to be paid by all progressive sections in this country to the need to foster and establish in Sri Lanka a truly secular state which would be always sensitive to the need to perpetuate religious freedom and equality within it. It needs to be seen that democracy in the truest sense of the word could flourish only on a secular basis.

At present, constitutionally speaking, Sri Lanka is in a ‘no man’s land’. It is up to those charting the constitutional reform process here to ensure that Sri Lanka is not confused with a theocracy. There could be no baulking at taking Sri Lanka on the road of democratic development and none other. Equal empowerment of persons and groups, remains the challenge.

As in the case of a number of other South Asian countries, Bangladesh too has a highly consumer oriented and growing middle class whose buying capability is being increasingly prized by South Asian blue chip companies. Needless to say, Bangladesh is also a prime apparel exporter in South Asia. The growing economic strength of Bangladesh, therefore, has to be noticed and valued. She is certainly an 'emerging economy' and a very promising one at that.

Nevertheless, in these 'emerging economies' of South Asia, including Sri Lanka, it would be most counter-productive to try a trade-off between democratic development and economic growth. Social disintegration which comes in the wake of ethnic violence, for example, would bring to nought all attempts at initiating material growth. This lesson was lost on Sri Lanka, as proved a few years back when anti-Muslim violence broke out in this country's South. Moreover, it was never realized by Sri Lanka's ruling elites that ethnic violence on the lines of July 1983 could be winked at only at the expense of the country's overall development. Those countries which forget the lessons of history are bound to recommit the blunders of the past, producing the same results in the process.