At the very least, symbolically, Eid is a joyous occasion, although the reality is that it fails to be an ode to joy in the lives of the multitude of the marginalised of this country’s citizenry. Some of them put on a charade of joyousness, while others make no pretense of hiding their gloom, or anxiety at the additional expenditure that would likely result from the celebration, or simple resignation at the inevitability of it all for a few days. All that, however, properly belongs to the realm of social and economic realities. However, over the last decade and a bit, it has become an interlude between endless days of irritation, frustration, uncertainty, and a host of other negative emotions resulting from the dysfunctional political culture that has been prevailing in this country.

Insanely entrenched positions brooking of no give-and-take, headstrong leadership at the very apex level of the two major political parties, gamesmanship, violence resulting from mutual intolerance of the two parties, the use of the most despicable language by legislators from both parties in the hallowed hall of the Jatiya Sangsad, the political ventures of obscurantist religious parties, with relatively small number of followers, but harboured by one of the very large parties (and, whenever the opportunity presents itself, turning into a situation of the proverbial tail wagging the dog), and marking time to take the country back to medieval times, and hartal after hartal after hartal are the manifestations of such a culture.

Lost in the process is an unfettered path towards development that encompasses a variety of areas. Make no mistake, notwithstanding any spin about human development and fulfilling several of the Millennium Development Goals within the designated timeframe, or any occasional pat on the back by patronising persons from Western nations, Bangladesh remains a poor country, which, unfortunately, becomes international news usually when some natural or man-made disaster strikes it. That kind of international media attention this country could do without. The irony is that, without the malevolent effects of dysfunctional political culture and another of its offshoots, rampant corruption across different areas, Bangladesh could have achieved much more than it has in the crucial sectors of economic, political, and scientific development, with the progress having to be substantive rather than cosmetic that has quite often been the case with institutional development thus far in this country. Then, it is likely that Bangladesh would be treated a bit more respectfully in the international media, or possibly ignored altogether (a far better proposition than the current practice of highlighting it when disasters strike it).

Democratic institutions require a democratic mindset across the length and breadth of the country’s citizenry. Just having the institutions in place without those being made to function with commensurate mindset would simply render them cosmetic, looking good on paper, but unable to fool the discerning. The advanced democracies are blessed with their citizens being imbued with the norms and, more importantly, the spirit of liberal pluralist democracy. We follow the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, inherited from the country which has devised it, Great Britain (a head of government from one of those advanced democracies, in the course of sending a congratulatory message on Prince George Alexander Louis’ birth, labeled it, with much justification, as the best democracy in the world). However, in our practice, we make a mockery of much of its norms and all of its spirit. And, it needs to be emphasised, this shortcoming is not restricted to the politicians. Hiding behind the politicians’ failings would not negate the same shortcoming afflicting other sections of the society. One just has to look at the groupings along major political party preferences in almost all professions (in themselves not necessarily an unsatisfactory situation), which seem to ape the mutual exclusivity that the two major parties display towards each other. Sadly, they include the most educated section of the society. And a nation divided against itself cannot hope to single-mindedly carry out its development goals to their full fruition.

Meanwhile, taking advantage of such mutual exclusivity (and animosity), obscurantist forces with miniscule following compared to those of the two large parties try to foist their own agenda on the party, which run counter to the very ideals of liberal pluralist democracy. Mind you, they will use the very liberalism of pluralist democracy to subvert its ideals and try to foist a Sharia-based medieval theocracy on the nation. A similar situation recently arose in Egypt when President Morsi, democratically elected, took to increasingly authoritarian policies and methods to gradually introduce the theocratic tenets of The Muslim Brotherhood on the nation before being ousted through a military coup. The recent Hefazat-e-Islam activities in Bangladesh did not even make a pretense of making known their intent of introducing theocracy as this country’s polity. Its leader’s recent obscurantist pronouncements on the status of women only reflect its philosophy. The two large parties’ policy of virulent mutual animosity opens the door for the religious parties to ride piggyback on one of them, and be in a position to strongly influence the large party’s agenda, akin to the Evangelicals over the last three decades being able to do the same to the Republican Party in the US. Or, more recently, the Tea Party on the Grand Old Party. And that is pathetic.

The same mutual animosity has led to the party in opposition to take recourse to spates of hartals to try to realise its demands, however justified or unjustified they might be. They have come at the expense of parliamentary debate over issues, the recognised procedure in the operation of parliamentary democracy. In fact, Bangladesh’s parliamentary democracy for an extended period has been caught in a rut of opposition members of the Jatiyo Sangsad choosing to stay away from its proceedings for most of its tenure, usually attending within a stipulated time to avoid losing their parliamentary seats, but not forgetting to avail of all the benefits and perks that their high public office allows. And, of course, all those emoluments and perquisites are paid for by the public, the very people the legislators are supposed to serve. But, then, we are comparing ours with the workings of a mature democracy. And ours is a flawed parliamentary system of democracy.

The impending dark cloud on the horizon that will visit Bangladesh soon after Eid will be the issue of the caretaker system. The respective positions of the Awami League and BNP on the matter are well known. Sadly, and ominously for the nation, they are solidly dug in their respective positions. Unless one or the other side gives (at the moment, looking unlikely), or, ideally, both shift positions to arrive at a satisfactory middle ground, one might reasonably expect disruptions to daily life caused by recurring hartals, not to speak of the considerable damage that the country’s economy has to incur. And, indications are that hartals have, for quite some time, become passé as an instrument of political coercion. There was a time when hartals were called keeping in mind an ideology, were given judiciously, and had genuine widespread support. The masses willingly endured privations, especially as hartals were sporadically resorted to.

The dysfunctional political culture has made hartal an infuriating tamasha with the ploy being increasingly resorted to for the flimsiest of reasons. The amusing aspect is that, on these occasions, people go about carrying out their everyday governmental (and personal) activities, but cannot do so if they are engaged in private business (with the caveat that the private transport sector remains almost normal). As a result, the country’s economy suffers. And, never mind the education sector. The upshot is that the hartal’s objective is seldom realised, while the ordinary person suffers from lost business, students from important educational activities like disruption in public examinations, and the national economy suffers serious setbacks. No one wins in the end.

And now we are faced with the issue of caretaker government, which was an unpleasant outcome of abysmal political culture in the first place. The mutual distrust between the two big parties, another aspect of flawed democracy, first brought about this democratic aberration, and then has perpetuated it as the political culture has visibly worsened down the years since parliamentary democracy was restored a little over two decades back. The caretaker system is not desirable, and its extended stay from 2007 resulted in some troubling outcomes for the nation and its political system. However, having said that, there might be a strong case to take recourse to it, or a modified version of the accepted practice of the parliamentary democratic system at the end of a term in office, for the coming election, or, if the situation so warrants, the one after that. It might take two elections before the normal working of parliamentary democracy becomes an accepted norm in Bangladesh. If matters come to a head between the two parties on the issue, and a way out does not seem possible, there is a real danger that another round of 2007 would recur in 2014. And that would be disastrous for the nation’s aspiration for a genuine liberal pluralist democratic system in operation. So, this Eid would be a temporary relief from the impending potential harsh reality staring at Bangladesh and its people. Eid Mubarak!

The writer is Head, Media and Communication Department, Independent University, Bangladesh