What Do We Expect from the State?
Rintu Anwar
The biggest weakness of our national politics is our failure to understand the fundamental difference between overthrowing an authoritarian regime and building a sustainable democratic system. Bringing down an authoritarian system can be a heroic event at a particular moment, but building an effective democratic state is a daily institutional struggle. After the historic mass uprising of 2024, people had high hopes of building a new state. But the return of old parties, internal conflicts and election-centred polarisation have once again raised the familiar question.
We often assess democracy based on a misconception. Many believe democracy is a magical vending machine where casting a vote will instantly produce good governance, employment, safe roads and justice. International political science research shows that democracy and state capacity can sometimes appear as alternatives in service delivery and infrastructure development. An undemocratic but capable government may also quickly build mega projects, increase power generation or provide public services.
So why should citizens of an underdeveloped or developing society prioritise democracy over authoritarian efficiency? The answer lies in the relationship between the ‘capacity’ of power and its ‘accountability’. However capable an unaccountable state may be, its power becomes a nightmare when turned against ordinary citizens. Without legal or institutional means to prevent abuse, any supposedly capable government can quickly become deeply authoritarian. Democracy does not guarantee a perfect government, but it provides a constitutional way to remove an errant ruler from power without bloodshed.
The mindset of young people presents a deep paradox for Bangladesh’s political future. Various national and international surveys show that an overwhelming majority strongly dislike the country’s existing dirty politics. Fearing violence, clashes, extortion and the crisis of political morality, they prefer to stay away from party politics. Yet nearly 80 percent say they are eager to exercise their voting rights.
This shows that young people value voting and civic rights as key tools of democracy, while the existing culture of power politics frustrates them. They want a system where merit, honesty and public welfare come before muscle power or control. When the same old practices return in a new form after a change of power, however, their interest in politics declines, weakening the democratic foundation in the long run.
In Bangladesh, democracy is often viewed through the narrow lens of party dominance. The mentality that the ruling party will control everything and eliminate its opponents gives rise to fascism. A genuine democratic culture means protecting the right of even those whose views we strongly dislike to speak freely. It also means accepting an election defeat and handing over power, while criticising the new government without using state machinery to destroy political opponents.
It is also important to distinguish between ensuring justice and pursuing political revenge. Bringing those responsible for enforced disappearances, killings, state repression and major corruption to justice is not revenge; it is essential to establishing the rule of law. A democratic society does not mean forgetting crimes, but ensuring that alleged offenders face impartial legal proceedings rather than personal vendetta or mob justice.
The lack of internal democracy within political parties is another major cause of the country’s political crisis. Parties that ignore ordinary members, do not practise secret ballots in councils or elections, and rely on familial or authoritarian loyalty cannot reasonably be expected to establish a liberal democratic environment after coming to power. If a dedicated party worker is sidelined for expressing dissent, how will the same party tolerate political opposition or public criticism? Democracy, therefore, must also be practised within the parties themselves.
Our civil society must also face some self-criticism. Over the past several decades, teachers, intellectuals, journalists and professionals have become divided into political camps, with many turning into party loyalists. When a party is in power, some beneficiary intellectuals use intellectual sophistry to justify its wrongdoing. A healthy democracy requires civil and professional society to speak fearlessly for truth and citizens’ rights rather than serve any particular political power.
In the current post-truth era, loyalty to political parties has often become more important than truth itself. Influenced by social media, people tend to believe information that supports their political interests, regardless of whether it is true. Such blind loyalty is narrowing the space for healthy debate and tolerance. Political speeches alone cannot change this culture; the state’s institutions must also be strengthened.
We need to ask whether the Election Commission is genuinely free from government influence, whether the judiciary can deliver impartial verdicts without executive pressure, and whether the administration and law enforcement agencies serve citizens rather than the ruling party. We must also ask whether authority and budgets are being transferred to local governments and whether journalists can report fearlessly on the wrongdoing of the powerful. Unless these institutions become independent and strong, no political manifesto can change people’s lives.
In their landmark book How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt showed that modern democracies usually do not collapse through military coups or tanks. Many have instead been weakened by authoritarian behaviour from leaders elected by the people. After gaining power through elections, such leaders gradually take control of the judiciary, constitution and election commission, ultimately closing the democratic path through which they came to power.
The truth before us is therefore bitter but clear. If, after removing a dictator through bloodshed, we return to the same culture of domination, sycophancy, party loyalty and political control over state institutions, then even elections will bring little real change. Democracy is not a gift secured once and for all; it is an ongoing civic struggle based on tolerance, strong institutions and constant vigilance against the abuse of power.
Author: A journalist and columnist.
