7 days ago
- copy link
Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief, ‘The Print’
Apart from Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammad Yunus, which other name have you heard in the context of change of power in Bangladesh? During the UN General Assembly this week, all the big leaders of western countries from America to Europe were heard praising Yunus.
Now the second question: Why has democracy been so weak in the big neighboring countries of our subcontinent? The immediate answer to this would be: Because Islam and democracy cannot go together. But this answer cannot withstand even a simple scrutiny of the facts.
If we look towards the Far East, this clichéd answer will not hold in the case of Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Before that, change of power had been happening peacefully in Malaysia too, even if they had elected Mahathir Mohamad. Or if we look towards the West, Turkey’s ruler Erdogan is not a liberal democratic leader, he can be considered a much bigger version of Mahathir, but he too has to face elections. And we have never said that democracy is a complete system of governance.
The population of Indonesia and Turkey is as Islamic as that of Pakistan or Bangladesh. Therefore, the argument that Pakistan or Bangladesh has been faltering because there is no compatibility between Islam and democracy is rejected.
Now let me give the example of another neighboring country, Myanmar. There is no Islam there. Rather, it has expelled most of its Muslims – the Rohingyas – by torturing them. It is almost entirely a Buddhist country.
There mainly dictators have been ruling and military rule has continued. As also happened in February 2021, Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and considered a democratic leader, was jailed.
You cannot blame Islam for depriving Myanmar of democracy. Then who will you blame? To Buddhism? But we can also reject this argument by looking at our own neighbourhood. Sri Lanka is a predominantly Buddhist country, but its priesthood has often been violent and racist. We forget what happened in Sri Lanka during the original incarnation of the party called ‘Janata Vimukthi Peramuna’.
Its own leaders have now been elected under a different name. But during that violent period, Buddhist monks not only approved of communal and targeted killings, but also encouraged them. Therefore, reject the idea that Buddhism is good for democracy but Islam is bad for it.
Coming here, I would like to answer the first question that apart from Yunus, which name other than Yunus have you heard or seen the most in the context of change of power in Bangladesh? That name is: General Waqar uz Zaman. Sheikh Hasina appointed him the army chief on June 23, just weeks before her overthrow.
In an interview with Reuters this week, General Zaman said what Yunus did not say: when will the next elections be held, that is, how long will this interim regime last. It can last for 12 to 18 months.
Remember that this is not an elected system and it is ruling without any constitution, and the person in charge of it has not been assigned a position under any executive or political system. Yunus has been called the chief advisor. We have not recently heard of any republic which is ruled by a Chief Advisor.
In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf had tried to pull such a stunt after overthrowing Nawaz Sharif in 1999. He felt embarrassed to call himself President so he adopted the name ‘Chief Executive’. However, he did not remain in this mask for long.
On the pretext of the Agra Summit (July 2001), he bestowed upon himself the designation of President. How could a mere ‘Chief Executive’ represent Pakistan in talks with the Prime Minister of India? Here I am not saying that Yunus will also change his position in the same manner, or that the General there will take over the reins.
It has now become inconvenient for the generals to seize power. In Pakistan-Bangladesh he has shown how to rule ‘behind the scenes’. I’m quoting here from an Obama advisor who walked away from the Libya issue after ‘resolving’ it.
At present, General Zaman is giving reassuring words. Speaking to Reuters’ Devjyot Ghoshal and Ruma Paul, he said: Whatever happens, I stand with Yunus Sahab so that he can complete his mission. The general has also promised to make necessary reforms in the judiciary, police and financial institutions, so that free and fair elections can be conducted.
In fact, no religion is the enemy of democracy. But when you place religion at the center of your national ideology and make the army the pivot of your governance system, then you start running into problems.
Combination of religion and army… How did Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Sri Lanka remain democratic despite the dominance of Islam or Buddhism, but why could Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar not do so? The threat to democracy in a country arises not only from religion but from the combination of religion and army. (These are the author’s own views)