1

Assignment: The Role of Civil Society in

contributing to Democracy in Bangladesh

Course No: DS-308

Submitted to: Kazi Maruful Islam Assistant Professor Depertment of Development Studies University of Dhaka

Submitted by:

Mostafa Amir Sabbih

Roll-20

2nd

Batch Undergrad Student

Depertment of Development Studies

University of Dhaka

Date of submission: 03-11-2011

2

Abstract

Grassroots development in Bangladesh gained world recognition with the 2006 Nobel Peace

Prize being awarded to Professor Yunus and his Grameen Bank. On the other side of the coin,

Transparency International rated Bangladesh as the World’s most corrupt country for five

successive years from 2001-2005. Why then, can civil society be so successful at the grassroots

level, yet not have any strong role in producing good governance and consolidating democracy?

The present study particularly addresses this problem and attempts to uncover the causes to such

contradictory outcome of civil society in Bangladesh. In this connection, the present study also

qualifies the normative assumption on the positive relation between civil society and democracy

asserted by the main stream Neo-Tocquevillean School that has profound influence on donor

policies on good governance and programs for strengthening civil society. From a comparative

discussion on contemporary India, The Philippines and Pakistan with that of Bangladesh, it is the

political actors that have been found to be the determining factor to the strength of civil society

and dimension of democracy.

The study not only answers questions regarding the weak performance of civil society in relation

to democratic consolidation but also indicates the impracticality of the donor policies for placing

high targets for civil society in a political system that still lacks political institutionalization,

democratic consensus and economic development. International and national policies on civil

society should be formulated accepting the social and political reality. Though the civil society

may not be able to completely overcome the influence of politicizations, lure of patronage, and

vertical social relations it has the possibility to improve and gain a stronger position. In this way,

whatever positive outcomes are produced may be considered as achievements.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction………………………………...……….4

2. Definitions…………………………………...……...5

2.1 Democracy…………………….…………………..5

2.2 Transition to democracy……………………………..5

2.3 Democratic consolidation…………………………....6

3. Literature Review………………………………….....7

4. Methodology………………………………………..8

5. The Overall Performance…………………………...9 5.1 Position of Bangladesh civil society

and democracy in comparison to other Asian countries…..9

5.2 Confrontational democracy in Bangladesh……………….9

5.3 Ability of Civil Society in Consolidating Democracy…….11

5.4 Neo-Tocquevillean Assumption and Donor Policies:

Implication of the Bangladesh Case………………….....…12

6. Conclusion…………………………………………..13

Bibliography…………………………………………14

4

1. Introduction

Performance of the civil society from the aspects of politics and democracy is rather

insignificant. The civil society has been termed weak fragmented (Westergaard 1990)1, and

partisan (Quadir 2003)2 in terms of ensuring pluralism, political participation and democracy.

Organizations that are conventionally known as civil society in Bangladesh, like the labor

unions, chambers of commerce, professional groups, bar associations, student groups and even

small local clubs and recently development NGOs, have been accused of partisanship and being

engaged in manufacturing and maintaining an elite dominating hegemony rather than advancing

the genuine interests of the groups (Stiles 2002, Quadir 2003, White 1999, Jahan 2005). Some of

these organizations are also scarred by corruption, clientelism and other misdeeds. The

traditional civil society organizations may be superficially seen to be working in a democratic

way following formal organizational structure and constitutions; practically they are found to be

run by the wish of the leader or group leaders who are again blessed and controlled by the

political parties. Horizontal democratic norms may not always be found in the leader member

relationship of such organizations. Again the development NGOs that is the CSOs who claim to

be the voice of the poor in Bangladesh often don’t follow democratic practice in their relation

with their poor beneficiaries. The relationship is more like a service provider or credit giver and

receiver than horizontal members possessing the same power to exert and implement their

opinions and wishes. The internal governance system of the NGOs are often accused to be

corrupt, non-accountable and influenced by nepotism, patronage etc.

Civil society seems to have reflecting the political and social situation of Bangladesh. Beginning

from the top political executives, administration, political parties and down to the local

government and informal social institutions in Bangladesh, it is clientelism, patronage, nepotism,

corruption that appears as the operative practices. Formal democracy is yet to be

institutionalized; rather it is facing interruptions and deadlocks from time to time due to non

compromising attitude of the major political parties. While civil society is expected to fight

against such negative forces within the society and politics, they are practically found to be

entangled within the current trend of politics. The associational culture that exists in Bangladesh

and the organizational strength that has shown success in poverty alleviation, have not yet

reached the level so as to act as the watch-guard to state performance.

1 Westergaard, K. (1990). ‘Decentralization of NGOs and Democratization in Bangladesh’ in

Demcoratization in the Third World: Concrete Cases in Comparative and Theoretical

Perspective by L. Rudebeck and O. Tornquist, eds., London: Macmillan. pp.173-188. 2 Quadir, Fahimul (2003). ‘How Civil is Civil Society? Authoritarian State, Partisan Civil

Society, and the Struggle for Democratic Development in Bangladesh.’ Canadian Journal of

Development Studies, Vol. XXIV No. 3, pp 425-438.

5

2. Definitions

2.1 Democracy

Dahl’s (1971, 1991) Polyarchy is regarded as the ideal type democracy for the present study. It is

the target for the transitional or fledgling democracies to achieve through institutionalizing their

democratic institutions and practices. The donor’s concerned in democratic consolidation

through the civil societies also recommend polyarchy as the goal for the developing world. The

most important seven features of such democratic polyarchy are, 1. Control over government

decisions on policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials; 2. Elected officials are chosen

and peacefully removed in frequent, fair, and free elections in which coercion is absent or quite

limited; 3. Virtually all adults have the right to vote; 4. Most adults also have the right to run for

public offices in these elections; 5. Citizens possess a right, effectively enforced by judicial and

administrative officials, to freedom of expression including criticism of and opposition to the

leaders or party in office. 6. They have access and effectively enforced right to gain access to

sources of information that are not monopolized by the government of the state, or by any other

single group; 7. They possess an effectively enforced right to form and join political

organizations, including political parties and interest groups (Dahl 1991, pp 73-74). These seven

conditions imply three main dimensions of political democracy— competition, participation and

civil and political liberties (Sørensen, 1993:13). In such a democracy institutional power holders

are elected by the people and are responsible to the people (Vanhanen, 1997: 31). It ensures

power sharing by all major groups where common people have some kind of control over

decision making (Quadir, 2004: 88). Dahl (1971) emphasizes the responsiveness of government

to the preferences of citizens considered as political equals. Democracy with such a high value

may be achieved only through stages and transitions, particularly in a developing country.

2.2 Transition to Democracy

There are rich literatures on democratic transition and consolidation (Przewoeski, 1991, Hansen

1996, Sørensen 1993, Gunther 1995, Power and Gasiorowski, Linz and Stepan, 1996). Accepting

the views of Hansen (1996) and Sørensen (1993), the stages for democratic transition turns out to

be the following four with democratic consolidation as the last stage:

1. Background condition—Authoritarian regime where national unity is strong among the

political communities;

2. Early transition— Political opening where the authoritarian regime gives concessions and a

consensus has been developed among the citizens and leaders for democratic change;

3. Late transition—at this stage the regime is more democratic than the previous ones but not

fully democratic. Political actors and governance institutions are yet to fully conform to the

democratic rule and democratic consolidation. These changes in phases do not occur in a

negotiated and linear manner. Often democracies in developing countries are found fluctuating

between authoritarianism and frail democracy (Sorensen 1993:41);

4. Democratic Consolidation—it is the last and final phase of democracy. In the ideal or strict

form, at this stage of democracy all the democratic institutions are formed and the new

democracy has proved itself capable of transferring power to an opposition party (Sørensen

1993:45).

6

Bangladesh in 2006 may be identified as being located at the stage of late democratic transition.

Bangladesh had gone through British colonial rule (1757-1947) and then had been under the

dictatorial rules of the Pakistani Military (1947-1971). During these periods there have been

movements for autonomy, democracy and independence where civil society had played a

significant role (Mamoon and Roy, 1998). Though Bangladesh emerged as an independent

democratic country in 1971, it soon went under authoritarian rule. From 1974 to 1990

Bangladesh was directly or indirectly ruled by military (Tasnim, 2002: 62)3. During the last half

of the 1980s, movements for democratic rule, lead by political parties and supported by civil

society gained voice and at the end of 1990 the authoritarian regime was ousted by a mass

movement. Quadir (2004:95) terms the process as a negotiated transition to democracy. Since

1990, Bangladesh began its first phase of democratic transition. The fledgling democracy is

experiencing ups and downs marked by political instability, confrontation and economic

inflation. However, in the meantime three peaceful free and fair elections had been held that

always led to ascendancy of the alternate political coalition to power. Now democratic rule of

games are understood by all political actors; however, the culture to adhere to democratic norm

and accept the uncertainty of the democratic institutions are yet to be reflected in the

performance of both the ruling power and opposition block, which often leads to political

deadlocks. So the democracy is still marked by instability and confrontation.

2.3 Democratic Consolidation

The challenge for democratic consolidation is to ensure the seven characteristics of poliarchy not

only through legislation and constitutional amendments but through practices ensuring political

stability, equality and representation of all segments of the society in state governance. The idea

is very broad and the process requires involvement and coordination of a good number of actors

and factors. Gunther (1995: 7) is of the opinion that democratic consolidation is achieved when a

consensus is reached among the key political actors to adhere to the democratic rules and accept

political institutions as the only legitimate framework for political contestation. This means an

agreement towards democracy from above. Linz and Stepan (1996) discuss the five major arenas

of a modern consolidated democracy that jointly contribute to a consolidated democracy— civil

society, political society, rule of law, state apparatus and economic society. All the five arenas

have their specific influence and type of interaction towards and within the democratic system.

Such democratic consolidation takes place in a combined way and is not dependent on only one

factor. The Linz and Stipan (1996) model is based on the experiences of democracies in Europe

and Latin America.

For the case of Bangladesh, I show that democratic consolidation may be achieved through the

combination of four major factors that is political institutionalization, stable economic growth,

development of a democratic culture and a participatory civil society. None of these sections will

work independently but together, where civil society interacts with all sections. The present

study shall concentrate on civil society in its ability in consolidating democracy in Bangladesh.

The four objectives or tasks for civil society in consolidating democracy in Bangladesh are the

following:

1. Civic education on political and human rights;

3 Tasnim, Farhat. (2002). ‘Crises of Political Development: Bangladesh Perspective’. Journal of

the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Vol. No. XXV. pp. 53-70.

7

2. Generating interest and values of the civil society groups to the political society— interest

aggregation;

3. Monitor the state apparatus and economic society of these sections will work independently

but together, where civil society interacts with all sections.

4. Ensure better participation and representation of all segments of society in political decision

making besides the poll and ensure better partnership between government and civil society.

3. Literature Review

Putnam (1993) and Diamond (1989, 1992) are considered as the proponents of the mainstream

Neo-Toquevillean school who argue that social capital and organized citizenry are the keys to

make democracy work. Trust, cooperation, generalized reciprocity and networks generated

through civic engagement and association are the core ingredients to economic and institutional

success. These traits define civic community. Societies rich with such traits have shown

affluences and democracy, while other societies that lack such attributes but marked by vertical

networks, patron-client relation, force, kinship, patronage etc. have shown lower performance in

development and good governance (Putnam, 1993). Diamond (1989) believed that developing

countries require autonomous, local based citizenry for the development and maintenance of

secure democracy. Harbeson (1994:1), another proponent of civil society in developing

countries, went to the extent of identifying civil society as the missing key to political reform,

legitimacy and governance in those political systems.

These ideas have provided the theoretical basis to the development paradigm called good

governance agenda where it is suggested that a virtuous circle could be built with the state,

economy, and civil society which will balance growth, equity and stability (Lewis 2004, 303)4.

Since the 1990s, International Development Organizations (IDO) has taken big projects to foster

development through civil society initiatives in the South. Researches show donor initiative to

support civil society has lead to grass-roots development, social mobilization, and empowerment

(World Bank reports, Fisher: 1998; Stiles: 2002, IOB: 1998, Amin: 1997, Tasnim: 2005, Dowla

and Barua: 2006). But donor projects have hardly succeeded in pushing forward the issues like

participation, democracy, and good governance through civil society effectively.

Putnam’s idea to bring about macro-political outcome (democracy) through micro social effect

(civic engagement) (Foley and Edwards, 1996: 6)5 has been criticized mainly from three

aspects— its simplicity, overlooking the political gap between civil society and democracy and

ignoring the other forces simultaneously active in the political system that influence both civil

society and democracy. Historically it has been proved that close network blocks, innovations

4 Lewis, David. (2004). ‘On Difficulty of Studying ‘civil society’: Reflection on NGOs, state and

democracy in Bangladesh’. Contributions to Indian Sociology. Vol. 38, No. 3. pp 299-322. 5 Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards. (1996). ‘The Paradox of Civil Society’. Journal of

Democracy. Vol. 7 No. 3. pp 38-52.

8

reinforce traditionalism and create distrust about those outside the social network. Development

practitioners have also been found to be ignoring the political institutions like political parties as

well as the traditional CSOs and concentrating only in forming and supporting new social

organization like development NGOs. Moreover, case studies have shown that often, political

institutionalization turns out to be more important for democracy than civic engagement and

political penetration may cause opposite effect through civic engagement (Berman, 1997)6.

Arnomy (2004:3), based on his empirical and historical observation, argues that, sociohistorical

context influences the nature, dispositions, orientations, and impact of civic engagement.

Institutional and societal conditions establish the cost threshold and enabling conditions that

determine the democratic potential of associations and movements. More the less, to avoid social

cleavages, Putnam’s ‘civic associations’ do not advance a cause, and rather pursues policy

changes (Foley and Edward, 1996) that are more like choral clubs, bird watching groups, soccer

clubs. Democratic roles that citizens are able to play from such non-political and often closed

membership are under question. According to Max Weber, the quantitative spread of

associational life does not always go hand in hand with its qualitative significance (Berman,

1997:407). In fact, this is what has actually happened. Since 1990s, civil society organizations

began to be highlighted both as service providers and in their role in promoting good governance

and democratization (Davis and McGregor, 2000:53)7

. Such interest of the international

development agencies in social capital, civil society and participation may be interpreted as

another way of building on the micro social foundation of market solutions (Angeles,

2004:187)8. With the end of the cold war, it had become necessary for the Western donors to

democratize the South as soon as possible to make away for the new thrust of trade

liberalization. They believed that a democratic and accountable state could foster economic

growth and development and allow the market to operate freely. To make a way for accelerated

entry of goods and services, financial services, protectionist or authoritarian regimes had to be

removed or forced to democratize.

4. Methodology

This study was entrenched mainly in secondary data sources. I have gone through several books,

articles, paper works linked to civil society and democracy in Bangladesh. The factors that

influence the nature, development and strength of civil societies and their role in strengthening or

contributing to democracy in Bangladesh have been based on previous literatures, researches,

reports and reviews.

6 Berman, Sheri. (1997). ‘Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic’. World

Politics. Vol 49. No. 3. 1997. pp. 401-429. 7 Davis. Peter R. and J. Allister Mcgregor. (2000). ‘Civil Society, International Donors and

Poverty in Bangladesh’. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1. PP 53 8 Angeles, Leonara C.(2004). ‘Grassroots Democracy and Community Empowerment: The

Quest for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Asia.’ In Democracy and Civil Society in Asia. Vol.

II edited by Fahimul Quadir and Jayant Lele, Hampshire: Palgrave, Macmillan. Pp. 187

9

5. The Overall Performance

5.1 Position of Bangladesh civil society and democracy in comparison to other

Asian countries

Table 1 gives a simplified idea of the nature of democracy and the strength of civil societies of

four Asian courtiers having political actors as the prime influencing factor. In case of India, civil

society has been used by the parties in both ways for democracy and communalism. Congress

Party emerged powerful in the absence of strong civil society organizations pushing for

important strategic policies while BJP came to political power by using the civil society for

motivating the voters with their communal sentiments. Only a few environment movements have

been able to show their independent strength and confronted the state and political power.

Table 1 Comparative table showing democracy and civil society level in four

Countries Countries Nature of

Democracy Vigilant Nature of Civil

Society Prime Influencing Factors

India Stable but partly

illiberal Partially vigilant, partially

politicized, partially uncivil Political Party and uncivil

forces The Philippines Elite dominated Politically active with

strong

network but divided

Political elites-land owners,

business class

Bangladesh Confrontational Less participatory,

politicized and

polarized

Political parties and

political

leaders Pakistan Failed Weak and fragile Military rulers using state

apparatus

On the other hand, in The Philippines, a strong network may be observed among civil society

groups which has reached the extent to form political blocks, joined by left politicians and has

entered electoral politics. However, they have also been found to be factious and influenced by

political oligarchs, thus yet to overcome the elite democracy.

In case of Pakistan it is the military state that has controlled the development and nature of

action of the civil society which never gained the strength to fight for democracy.

Bangladesh also shows the strong influences of political parties upon the society where the

citizens and civil society groups have become co-opted and divided and acting for the political

end of these parties. Though apparently, the country has a parliamentary system of democracy

with numerous civil society organizations active at both local and national level. Based on the

discussion on the nature of civil society, democracy of the four countries we get an idea of the

position of Bangladesh in comparison to other countries. It is in a much better condition than

Pakistan in contrast to democracy and civil society but after India and Philippines. It is the

political actors who have ultimately defined the position of each country.

5.2 Confrontational Democracy in Bangladesh

After a successful mass movement against the autocratic military regime in 1990, parliamentary

system of government had been reintroduced in Bangladesh. However, in 2006 that is after 15

years, democracy is yet to be consolidated in Bangladesh. Rather behind the façade of

10

democracy, exists, instability, weak political institutions, patrimonial politics, personalized

political parties, patron-client relation and absence of political consensus (Kochanek, 2000:

530)9. Researchers and scholars have termed such democracy rather partial or quasi-liberal or

illiberal democracy (Kochanek, 2000; Hossian, 2000; Zafarullah, 2003). They have pointed out

the personalistic rule of the political leaders of two major parties and the existing confrontation

among them, as well as the mentality of playing zero-sum game in politics. During the 1990s the

major political blocks had become divided over conflicting definitions of Bangladeshi identity,

national heroes and liberation war symbols (Kochanek, 2000:531). Such division did not remain

confined within the political elites but have influenced all social groups willingly or unwillingly.

This division had become compounded when dynastic political leaders of the two major parties

engaged in bitter, personal struggle to restore their patrimonial right to control over the state and

polarized the whole nation. Ultimately such polarization has been used for political expedience

that affected the democratic growth of civil society. This was just the opposite of democratic

culture that was expected to develop through the reintroduction of democracy in 1990. At the

administration level, during this period, political factors often determined the choice of people

for key position in the governmental hierarchy, while personnel were shuffled within the civil

service and statuary bodies according to partisan agendas. Public Policy domain has always been

bureaucratized or maneuvered by the ruling party dictates to serve vested political and economic

interest. There is very little scope for the policy networks integrating state and advocacy

coalition (Zafarullah, 2003)10

. Intrusion of civil society into policy arena is looked on

suspiciously. Civil society organizations were discriminated based on their links to ruling party

or the opponents, and educational institutions, especially universities and colleges, had been used

by the major political parties to further their political objective. The press and private electronic

media were relatively free but each news paper had tilt to either side of the political coalitions

and often the private television channels were owned by the political business magnets. Though

democratic, practically no regime have provided the enough space and showed responsiveness to

the participation of civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The law, society, donor initiative,

social tradition has led to the proliferation of civil society organizations. However,

confrontational politics played by the two major political parties through the instruments of

clientelism, patronage, nepotism corruption, violence have co-opted, politicized, weakened and

polarized the civil society groups and undermined their ability to participate in political process,

contribute to governance and democracy. The winning party enjoys monopoly of power for the

duration of their electoral term, political decision making power centers around the Prime

Minister’s office (the Prime Minister herself and her closest political advisors). The society and

civil society are politicized according to political line. And such party-society relation is based

on clientelistic incorporation. The features are common in rule of either of two major political

parties and their coalitions who are constantly confronting each other.

9 Kochanek, Stanely. (2000). ‘Governance, Patronage, Politics and Democratic Transition in

Bangladesh’. Asian Survey. Vol. 40 No. 3 pp.530. 10 Zafarullah, Habib. (2003). Globalization, ‘State and Politics in Bangladesh’. South Asia:

Journal of South Asian Studies. Vol. XXVI. No. 3. pp . 283-296.

11

5.3 Ability of Civil Society in Consolidating Democracy

As discussed earlier, for Bangladesh to achieve democratic consolidation, it is necessary to

ensure the combined effect of four major interacting factors, e.g., political institutionalization,

stable economic growth, formation of a democratic culture and a participatory civil society. It

has also been identified that a participatory civil society has four main tasks to realize democratic

consolidation. These are civic education on political and human rights, interest aggregation,

monitoring of state apparatus and economic society and ensuring better participation and

representation of all segments of society in political decision making. With the data and analysis

revealed through the present study, it is now possible to point out to a considerable extent the

ability and potentials of civil society in consolidating democracy in Bangladesh. On civic

education, the performance of the civil society is satisfactory so far. At the grass-roots level, it

has been found that CSOs are involved in some types of civic education and advocacy trainings

like developing group network, local representation and ventilation of grievances, providing

education and service in exercising legal and political rights, and raising social and political

awareness. However, such activities have been found to be performed at a far low rate than the

CSOs’ involvement in service providing functions like education, economic empowerment etc.

Though low in rate in comparison to other service providing functions, raising political

awareness has become a part of the grass-roots projects of civil society organizations,

particularly among NGOs as the donors have put emphasis on such activities. The high rate of

voters’ turn out (over 70%) during the 1996, and 2001 elections is said to be partly due to such

awareness programs. Naturally, this must be evaluated positively for the citizens of Bangladesh

and its democracy. However, as discussed in chapter five, awareness programs give the NGOs

the opportunity to influence a large section of the voters’ decision regarding to whom to vote.

Naturally the contesting political parties have considered this as a means to ensure a large vote

bank. This led to political deals among the political parties and NGO leaders, which ultimately

brought partisan allegations against some NGOs and their coalition. This divided the largest

umbrella organization of development NGOs—ADAB. In case of interest aggregation, civil

society has been found to be inefficient due to its low level of network and lower rate of

participatory actions. Though the civil society in Bangladesh has strong link with the political

parties, it is not for channeling grievances and pursuing for collective interest of the civil society

through the parties. Rather political link has been found to bring about division among the civil

society organizations and their coalitions. In case of civic engagement at the local level, the

Bangladesh case supports the observation made in the CIVICUS project (2007) where it has been

found that often in the South, the local initiatives for social welfare and collective actions,

voluntarism, charity etc. are not coupled with a strong organized civil society in terms of levels

of organizations, networks, infrastructure, and resources. Excluding the foreign funded NGOs,

most of the CSOs particularly at the local level lack the necessary resources, organizational skills

and technical assistance that may help them form network, write petitions, or engage in other

forms of lobbying or advocacy. Moreover, Bangladeshi citizens do not enjoy social liberty as

much as developed countries or even neighboring India. Small local NGOs also try to avoid

playing political roles in public though they have to maintain political links informally for their

existence and execution of their programs. At the capital level, only a minority of like-minded

think-tanks, citizens' groups and NGOs have emerged as the voice of the civil society attracting

the media and debating with the state. These few CSOs belong to a certain block and ideology

(liberal and market economy) group; they cannot represent the whole civil society that consists

12

of different views and ways of thinking. However, it is only these organizations that possess the

necessary technical, intellectual and financial support to attract the media, press and the

government. So the interest aggregations are not taking place in a bottom up manner but by a few

elite organizations at the centre. Evaluating on the basis of participation and representation all

segments of the society, the low participatory Bangladeshi civil society can hardly make any

success. Among the CSOs, participation rate through lobby, advocacy and other means like

sending representative to local council and advisory bodies, have been low. Such findings rather

refer to a low potential for the civil society to ensure participation and representation of all

segments of the society. Lastly the most important activity of the civil society is to monitor state

actions. Low rate of participatory activities by the civil society at the periphery and meso levels

has already been mentioned. Moreover, analysis has shown that there are rather vertical links

between the political actors and the civil society and political parties have penetrated the civil

society. When the civil society organizations are already co-opted and controlled by the political

actors they can hardly act independently and stand against the excesses of the state. Nevertheless,

the potential or ability of civil society in Bangladesh in consolidating democracy cannot make us

very optimistic.

5.4 Neo-Tocquevillean Assumption and Donor Policies: Implication of the

Bangladesh Case

The present study not only pointed out the reasons behind the inability of civil society in

Bangladesh to contribute to democratic consolidation but also made attempts to qualify the

assumption on civil society and democracy by the main stream Neo-Tocquevillean school. The

school presumes that the more associations there are in a country the greater the possibility that

democratic institutions will improve. It is believed that efforts to produce democracy through

civil society and civic engagement may bring about macro social outputs from micro social

efforts, the democratic practices shaped in associational activities will have spillover effects in

other context and the same associational structures will operate in similar ways in different

socio-historical back ground. Such supposition has profoundly influenced the donor policies on

developing countries.

The Bangladesh case has shown that despite the existence of a good number of civic groups and

local associations and clubs at the community levels, civil society hardly influenced or

contributed in local government decision making, national policies, and democracy. A good

number of CSOs are working not only at the local level but also at the meso and central levels;

but these organizations can hardly be considered as autonomous or well networked. Rather, most

though not all CSOs have been found to be politicized and controlled by political actors and local

elites, acting in favor of the status-quo rather than the people they represent. Moreover, a very

few of them have been found to be active in actions that are related to politics and democracy.

That civil society is an essential but not enough condition for democratic consolidation- is a fact

broadly accepted by the contemporary researchers on civil society. Alagappa (2004) in his

project on Asian civil society has pointed out to the same fact. In the CIVICUS CSI project,

positive relations have been identified between a strong civil society and a strong state. Diamond

(1996, 1999) has also mentioned the necessity of internal democracy within the CSOs, and some

ideal characteristics for a civil society to be able to contribute to democracy. At the same time he

emphasized the necessity of political institutionalization and liberal economic growth. Such ideal

13

condition and characteristics of civil society may provide strong theoretical base for the study of

civil society, but in reality turns out to be impractical. Empirical investigation in developing

countries like Bangladesh reveals its inapplicability. For civil society to work well and emerge as

a powerful sector to bring and maintain democracy, it requires proper democratic environment

that most of the developing countries fail to provide. But Diamond (1992, 1996) is optimistic

that civil society movement and actions may make through the undemocratic environment and

contribute to better democratic atmosphere in multiple ways like fighting against corruption,

nurturing democratic values, bringing an end to clientelism, bringing unity among social

cleavages and so on. The Bangladesh case has proved such expectations from a civil society to

be unrealistic and normative. CSOs have been found to be in no position to generate democratic

values, reduce corruption or clientelism. Rather the civil society leaders have been found to

become corrupt, NGOs have been found to be incorporated in the patron-client network and most

of the CSOs to be under the control of the political parties. Under a situation of low level of

economic development, vertical social relations, instable political system and weak state, civil

society alone cannot struggle through. Rather on its way it becomes influenced by the negative

forces existing in the environment.

6. Conclusion

Civil society and its potential to contribute to democracy is determined not by any single factor.

However, in combination of different factors like history, culture, external influence, regulatory

framework, it is the Political structures that influence the civil society most and simultaneously

the nature of democracy. This fact is evident not only in Bangladesh but other developing

democracies in Asia. Stable democracy may not necessarily facilitate strong civil society so as

strong civil society may not always lead to consolidated democracy. Rather, it is the political

parties and their all powerful penetrative control. This has receded the participatory strength and

strong voice of the vibrant civil society to contribute to democracy. Historical developments

have helped the political parties to emerge as such powerful and penetrative position as well

answers the reason why they have been able to succeed in their endeavor to divide and control

the social groups. Cultural traditions of vertical social relationship, explain the nature of political

cooptation that has taken place. Foreign donation has been accused of providing the necessary

resources for corruption and patronage. Political parties have control over different traditional,

professional groups, labor unions, chambers of commerce and so on at the central and meso

level. Link with the political parties has become the main source of power for the rural elites.

The NGOs have also turned into the new patrons to the poor. Moreover, such NGOs with

development projects nationwide have lost their unity influenced by partisan politics.

14

Bibliography

Angeles, Leonara C.(2004). ‘Grassroots Democracy and Community Empowerment: The

Berman, Sheri. (1997). ‘Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic’. World Politics.

Vol 49. No. 3.

Davis. Peter R. and J. Allister Mcgregor. (2000). ‘Civil Society, International Donors and

Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards. (1996). ‘The Paradox of Civil Society’. Journal of

Democracy. Vol. 7 No. 3.

Kochanek, Stanely. (2000). ‘Governance, Patronage, Politics and Democratic Transition in

Bangladesh’. Asian Survey. Vol. 40 No. 3.

Lewis, David. (2004). ‘On Difficulty of Studying ‘civil society’: Reflection on NGOs, state and

democracy in Bangladesh’. Contributions to Indian Sociology. Vol. 38, No. 3.

Poverty in Bangladesh’. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1.

Quadir, Fahimul (2003). ‘How Civil is Civil Society? Authoritarian State, Partisan Civil Society,

and the Struggle for Democratic Development in Bangladesh.’ Canadian Journal of

Development Studies, Vol. XXIV No. 3.

Quest for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Asia.’ In Democracy and Civil Society in Asia. Vol.

II edited by Fahimul Quadir and Jayant Lele, Hampshire: Palgrave, Macmillan.

Tasnim, Farhat. (2002). ‘Crises of Political Development: Bangladesh Perspective’. Journal of

the Institute of Bangladesh Studies. Vol. No. XXV.

Tasnim, Farhat. (2007). ‘Civil Society in Bangladesh: Vibrant but not Vigilant’. In Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science.

Westergaard, K. (1990). ‘Decentralization of NGOs and Democratization in Bangladesh’ in

Demcoratization in the Third World: Concrete Cases in Comparative and Theoretical

Perspective by L. Rudebeck and O. Tornquist, eds., London: Macmillan.

Zafarullah, Habib. (2003). Globalization, ‘State and Politics in Bangladesh’. South Asia: Journal

of South Asian Studies. Vol. XXVI. No. 3.