Basic Democracy Revisited

--Ziauddin Choudhury

It seems like its dj vu all over again, is a famously mangled expression attributed to US Baseball
legend Yogi Berra. It is often cited by writers to describe something that had happened before for fun
instead of saying just dj vu. The just concluded elections to Zilla Parishad are perhaps a good
occasion to remember and cite Yogi Berra quotation that brings back the memories of Basic Democracy
ushered in Pakistan by Ayub Khan in the sixties. This is dj vu all over again!

When Ayub Khan introduced Basic Democracy after trashing a truly democratic constitution through
Martial law, he had only objective to institute a system that could be guided at will of the rulers. Ayub
Khan stated that the system suited the genius of the people of Pakistan because he did not believe
that the directly elected parliamentary system was suitable for the country. Instead he introduced Basic
Democracy, envisaged as five tiered institutions starting from the bottom at Union level and ending at
the center with Thanas, Districts, and Provinces in between. The only direct election would be at the
Union level, members of next levels would be Chairmen of the institutions immediately below them
(e.g., members of Thana Council would be Chairmen of Union Councils, members of District Council
would be Chairmen of Thana Councils, and so on.) In reality, however, the institutions above District
level were never formed. The memberships of Thana and District Councils were also half filled with
government officials.

The real purpose of Basic Democracy would be revealed, however, in the 1962 constitution introduced
by Ayub Khan. Under the 1962 constitution the Basic Democrats elected at Union level formed an
electoral college to elect the president, the National Assembly, and the provincial assemblies. Since then
this electoral college of Basic Democrats became the darling of the regime who formed the core group
of support for government and its rulers. The lofty ideals of grass root democracy with a coterie of
supporters did not last long. The system collapsed with the fall of Ayub Khan in 1969 after mass
upheaval all over Pakistan. The only beneficiaries of the system were big landlords, industrialists, and
the civil service whose powers were greatly augmented in that period.

One of the major objectives of the liberation struggle for Bangladesh, besides getting rid of Pakistan
junta, was reestablishing democracy in the country. This would be a democracy that would enable every
citizen of the country to participate in their choice of representatives, local or national. Government will
not only foster democracy but also will ensure that people take part in this exercise without fear or
coercion. But forty five years after our struggle to reestablish democracy we still find ourselves to be still
chasing that lofty objective.

On paper we have no lack of will to establish democratically elected institutions and our parliament,
local government institutions, and election commission are good examples. On theory, we have an
elected parliament, and elected councils at Union, Zilla and Corporation levels. But were all members of
these bodies elected by peoples choice alone? One third of the current members of the Parliament
were elected unopposed not just because the main opposition refrained from participation, but because
a large number of potential contestants doubted the integrity of the system and did not want to
participate. The elections to the Upazillas were seriously maneuvered to the extent that contests were
abandoned half way by opposition parties leaving the elections open for people to get elected
unopposed. The elections to scores of urban bodies were also not untainted either. And now comes
election to Zilla Parishads.

From the very beginning legitimate doubts have been expressed about the method of indirect elections
to such an important tier of local government which traditionally had wielded considerable prestige and
influence in a district. From colonial days this institution referred to as District Board (later District
Council) had attracted locally important political leaders and the institution itself had made itself known
for sponsoring and maintaining a substantial amount local development work. District Board Chairman
and members had had considerable prestige and they comprised elites of the district drawn from
professions, business, and landed gentry.

After an interregnum of the District Boards being run by Deputy Commissioners/District Magistrates in
Pakistan period as Chairmen without any elected body, the District Boards were changed to District
Councils under Basic Democracy system. District Council was constituted with official members and
nominated members, half of the members of District Council were elected by the Chairman of Union
Parishad. The government appointed the remaining half. The Deputy Commissioner of the District
became the ex-officio chairman of the District council. The functions of District Council included
construction and maintenance of roads, and brides, building hospitals dispensaries, schools and
educational institutions, health facilities and sanitation, tube well for drinking water, rest house and
coordination of activities of Union Parishads within the District. Revenues of the District Council partly
came from leasing of Council owned market places, water bodies, and ferry ghats. But the bulk of the
development budget came from Government grants.

The District Councils continued to be managed by Deputy Commissioners for a long time even after the
demise of Basic Democracy and Pakistan without an elected body. Much of the status quo was due to
the inability of the new government to introduce new rules and acts for local government for Thanas
and Districts. Although a new local government for the Thanas after their conversion into Upazillas was
introduced under President Ershad, the subsequent government suspended the system. The system was
revived with some changes in 1999 by another government. This was followed by the Zilla Parishad Act
of 2000 that gave promise of an elected body for the districts, something that would not be
implemented for next sixteen years.

The much awaited Zilla Parishad Chairman elections were held this December but with a significant
absence of direct elections that the Act had originally assured. Instead of direct elections an electoral
college consisting of Upazilla/Union Chairmen, and Mayors of corporations was formed by an
amendment to the Act which would vote for a 21 member council including Chairman for each Parishad.
The elections were again marred by non-participation by main opposition BNP on grounds of anticipated
unfairness and malpractices in elections. The results so far have been that many Chairmen have been
elected unopposed (as in the case of 2013 parliamentary elections). The final tally would definitely favor
the ruling party because of indirect elections as well as non-participation by the main opposition. But
more importantly these indirect elections will further reinforce the image of a non-participatory
democracy that the country seems to be practicing now. The elections for Zilla Parishad like the other
elections before will be now part of a trend that we are witnessing that sets a challenge to establishing a
truly democratic country that we had hoped for. Going forward we can only hope that the elected office
holders will try to establish an institution can serve people and their aspirations instead of themselves
however imperfect way attained the office.