14th July 1996

After Bangladesh Elections

Dr. Deepika Udagama, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, and Director of the Centre for Human Rights, was among three women in a group of Sri Lankan observers at last month's elections in Bangladesh. Ten Sri Lankans participated here as part of a South Asian Observation Team organized by the International Centre for Ethnic Studies.

This week, Dr. Udagama speaks to "Towards Change" of her experiences as an observer in Bangladesh, of the various connections she drew between electoral behaviour in South Asian countries and of the role of women in South Asian politics. How far, for example, does the quota of seats reserved for women in the Bangladeshi parliament (thirty out of 330 seats) help female participation in politics, and how far does it negate the important strides made by women in the political arena? And is a woman at the helm itself enough to ensure a better lot for women in general?

Bangladesh exemplifies the trend in South Asian politics in its patterns of female leadership. This year saw the victory of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League, and prior to this, it was the reign of Begam Khalida Zia. But it is heredity, more than achievement that got them there; Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of an assassinated president, and Begam Khalida Zia is the wife of a assassinated president. So is it, after all, a positive achievement for women? The elections were furthermore tarnished because of the vituperative hate politics between the two women prior to the elections, which included violent upheavals that resulted in a virtual state of anarchy in Bangladesh, bringing untold hardship on the nation's economy and people. How did the nation react to this, specially in justifying their mistrust of women in politics?

On the other hand, this year's elections also saw the "Coming of age" of women in the election process, where an effective campaign by the Elections Commission of Bangladesh has given women not only the right, but the confidence, to vote the way they want to. Dr. Udagama has some interesting insights.

When you think of the present Bangladesh, you have visions of a country in chaos, but when we went there for observation, what we saw was something very positive, specially considering Bangladesh's traumatic past. The elections on the whole were very well organized and we were struck by the professionalism of it all. Security was adequately provided and the election staff was extremely well briefed. In each polling station, they could give us statistics that we asked for in minutes. The Caretaker government was hell-bent on making the elections work. Finally, the polling agents expressed their satisfaction at the conduct of the elections, and the verdict for the elections on the whole was "free and fair".

All this made me question the connection between literacy and political maturity. We have 86% literacy, and in Bangladesh it is only 37%. Qualitatively we should be streets ahead. But I don't know whether literacy is a barometre for political maturity. [Sri Lankans] should have been able to say "look, our people stand up to politicians, our people are more assertive"., but I don't see very much maturity in voting patterns here, such as the demand not to be brought by promises of subsidies and so on.

And when you look at the voting patterns in Bangladesh, you realize how intelligently they have voted. Sheikh Hasina's Awami League was not given a very clear majority and the Islamic party Jammath-E- Islami was routed. There was a higher level of comfort with a relatively secular state. In India too, when the [nationalist] BJP came to power, people were worried. People were voicing their concern and political analysts were talking about it.

But the tenor of the campaign in Bangladesh was not very different from ours. And with the nouveau riche entering politics, there was a lot of money laundering. So much money was injected to poster campaigns and so on. And with the money comes other problems like violence and the erosion of democratic principles. There were also very facile, immature promises, voter buying with drinks - the same types of practices - different only in degree. And Sheik Hasina's people had made things very difficult, they used the masses to create a difficult situation before the elections. And the trust levels of the people were almost zero.

In South Asia we pay lip service to democracy, and the only thing that is meant by democracy is elections. But for democracy to really work, we have to progress from there to make its meaning encompass the reception of diverse opinion, dialogue, and how parliament is utilized. We have to evolve methods of participation, not have the opposition play the role of opposing everything, but being there for consultation on national issues. Institutions have to be strengthened, and concepts such as the freedom of expression and the freedom of association have to be respected.

But Bangladesh hasn't had a very democratic tradition. Democracy is at a very preliminary level there. The country has a parliament system, but in 1991, the parliament was hardly utilized to thrash out burning issues. I suppose this is the lack of a tradition. Institutions such as the parliament are still very weak in Bangladesh; there have been several army coups, there are no conventions (if there are any, then they are flouted), and no strong role for the opposition. Then everything is debased to street-level politics which is basically anarchy.

But in Sri Lanka, we have that tradition, and we are going back, that's what's sad. We are still stagnating at the same level. We had so much potential, but look what has happened.

****

The anarchy before the elections in Bangladesh and the fact that the two major contenders were women had various implications for the lot of women. They capitalized on the image of two viragos tearing each other's hair out - there is always this special dimension when it comes to women politicians, they are never seen as politicians, but as women. This kind of anarchy is then used to say that women should not be in power. They are identified with certain traits. At the same time, having women at the helm is also very encouraging.

But as far as women contestants were concerned, we were disappointed overall. Each party had fielded an average of 5 out of 300 contestants. The Jammath-E-Islami had none. They had stated that women are not made for the rough and tumble of politics. This is so untrue. In South Asia, it is women who go door to door soliciting votes for their men. And another argument the Jammath E-Islami put forward is, why should we field women candidates when there is already a quota? So the tokenism really worked negatively. Because you do see women coming forward in politics. What should be encouraged is for women to participate directly. After all, women are half the electorate. Because of the quota system in Bangladesh, the number of women contesting directly was limited. I am not saying affirmative action is wrong, but we have to move away from all that.

But so far, in South Asia, most women leaders, like Begum Khalida and Sheik Hasina in Bangladesh, have contested because their husbands or fathers were killed. So what is the headway we have made as women? And having women at the top is not in itself enough to ensure that women's lot is made better. For democracy to work, there has to be an overall change.

* * *

The District of Bapna where I was observing was an agricultural area with five electorates. And in most of these, almost equal numbers of men and women had registered for voting. One official told me, waving his arms at the women voters, "Sister, I have nothing against women, but this is our plight". It was interesting that here, as well as elsewhere, half, and sometimes more than half of those who actually voted were women. This was a point that was brought up for discussion.

I wanted to know from the young women who had come for voting who decides whom to vote in their families. And they answered, almost without fail "my vote is my vote, your vote is your vote". This is a slogan that the Election Commission had very effectively disseminated to the public through the radio (this is the best means of communication because of the low literacy rates in Bangladesh). Whatever happened at the polling booth, the concept had at least been learnt that it was wrong for someone else to decide whom you vote for. Because women particularly, have a general tendency to vote the way the family does.

This media campaign has been pivotal in bringing the women out, giving them the confidence that they can decide for themselves. The Election Committee had also stressed that this is a festival, making the whole thing cultural and attractive. And election day was truly a festival. The women were all dressed up. It was a blending of culture with their victory of exercising their right to vote.

The women usually came to vote between 8-11 in the morning. All of them came to the polling stations in buggy carts - like going to a wedding - they go in and vote, and then wait under the shade of a tree with the other women's children while they vote, a sort of ad hoc crèche - a very interesting social arrangement. The radio messages had a great impact.

These people mainly wanted political stability. And they wanted a change. Because the Awami League had been out of power for 21 years, and they had several military governments, they felt that change was something healthy.

* * *

The elections in Bangladesh were held under a caretaker government because of all the instability. Ideally, the incumbent government should be able to conduct fair elections. But politization of the system is so rampant that people generally have the impression that no incumbent government can conduct a fair election. This is unfortunate. We have to move away from this. But in the interim period, we have to think about devices such as caretaker governments.

* * *

On the whole, it was not a unique experience. But their people have done the job beautifully as far as the elections and the voting are concerned, and now it is up to the politicians to deliver the goods.

* * *

Continue to Plus page 3 - Fare, unfair

Return to the Plus contents page

Read Letters to the Editor