The world didn’t stand still…

Published : 23 May 2011, 06:51 PM
Updated : 23 May 2011, 06:51 PM

On Saturday, May 21, I spent the last day on earth as I spend so many of my days. I was stuck in traffic. I was driving to a party for my niece. The Last Day on Earth was full of springtime flowers, temperatures that favoured a nice swim, but not so hot as to prevent those of us who reached the party from dancing. The last day on Earth was spent, as every day on earth should be spent, celebrating life, inside a warm, caring circle of family and friends.

I wondered what a former prime minister of Bangladesh must have thought of the doomsday billboards as she arrived in New York. I wondered. Had this been a real crisis, would Bangladesh's Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object political dilemma have been set aside for the good of the nation? Would both parties cooperate in a time of crisis? I was thinking about that when I finally arrived at my niece's house. Glancing at one of the shelves stacked with children's books, I noticed a cautionary parable. If I had been at the party for Khaleda Zia, I might have brought this particular book as a gift to her.

When I was a child, I really enjoyed the drawings and stories of children's writer Dr. Seuss. I thought his stories were hilarious, and his drawings were nearly something I could do myself.

As I leafed through one of Dr. Seuss' books, I came to a particular tale that, for me as an outsider, pretty much summed up my understanding of the political climate in Bangladesh: The story of the North Going Zax and the South Going Zax.

In this tale, in an empty prairie, a creature known as the North Going Zax, a sort of human-looking furry creature, was heading North, as was his wont, as he had been trained to do, and as he had always done. Unfortunately, along the same trajectory, walking in the other direction, came the South Going Zax, just as intransigent and uncompromising. The two Zaxes came face-to-face. Each attempted to force the other to move. But neither would budge. Both vowed to remain where they stand until the other moved, "even if the whole world stands still."

Dr Seuss concludes his story….

"But the world didn't stand still. In a few years the new highway went through. And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax, and they left them there, standing, unbudged, in their tracks."

The danger for Bangladesh, as this well-wisher sees it, is that both political antagonists will not budge. In all my research into the goings-on, I find the situation difficult to grasp. I have my homework, I have read your Constitution. I simply don't understand terms like "The Caretaker government". I don't know why the BNP would be talking of another caretaker government. Aren't these caretaker governments rife with potential danger? Couldn't such governments fall prey to political ambition, either from the military, or from other power-hungry institutions and individuals? Is allowing the judicial branch to rule temporarily the best procedure to ensure a democratic transfer of executive power? Wouldn't it be better for the parties to reach a compromise where the elections could be monitored by both sides, and a smooth transition made without the need of any interim measure?

It seems that Bangladesh politics does not favour compromise. It seems as if your politicians are compelled to line up behind one or the other intransigent Zax. Meanwhile, it seems to me that to put the chief justice in charge of the elections is to force the judicial, which, in a well-run nation, must be impartial, into the position of chief politician.

When the American Founding Fathers created our constitution, they saw the danger of creating political parties. They strove to create competing interests in order to force compromise. George Washington despised political parties. Therefore, those who wrote our Constitution built a government which is more like a road than a railroad track, where conflicting interests had room to swerve out of each others' way, and make compromises. Traffic may get heavy at times, but at least it eventually yields the right of way. It strikes me that the Bangladeshi constitution favours a more winner-takes-all system, and two trains heading towards each other on a single track are bound either stop dead in their tracks, or collide.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I know that the United States has gotten increasingly partisan in recent years, and that no system can guarantee that stubborn, self-interest individuals will not eventually hijack the system. To compare the American system of government with the Bangladeshi one is like comparing Cricket to Baseball. Despite the similarities, they're two different sports. On the other hand, when we choose to abide by our Constitution, things seem to go right for us. When we don't, our government bottlenecks along party lines just as badly as it bottlenecks there in Bangladesh.

* * *

As I was stuck in traffic on The Last Day on Earth, I started to form crazy fantasies about being asked to contribute to Constitutional reform in Bangladesh. Remember, it was my last car trip that inspired me to arrange the fishing trip between Shiekh Hasina and Sarah Palin. The time before, while stuck in traffic, I became Head of Public Relations for Bangladesh and arranged a "Coming out Party" for you guys, the Concert From Bangladesh…. So here's my crazy three o'clock in the morning Constitutional reform for Bangladesh. Please take it for what it's worth.

I do my best thinking in traffic.

Be forewarned:

My Dad always says, "Much better to stand there looking dumb than to open your mouth and remove all doubt", but I suppose that if I were more judicious in my opinions, I would have become a University President, like him, and not an Op-Ed writer.

In any case, I would make the following proposals, to sway the North and the South Going Zax to veer from their paths and provide progress for the people of Bangladesh so their leaders don't simply stand still as the world changes.

Please understand that this is a speculative intellectual exercise aimed at breaking the governmental logjam, and not meant to be seen as a political position. I hope it stimulates discussion, and people can set me straight as to the flaws with my proposal, and my ignorance of the internal politics of Bangladesh.

I understand that under the current system there, one elected official serves one particular region. If a constitution were mine to create, I'd create a delegation system, where a particular region is represented proportionally, based upon the percentage of the votes collected in that particular geographical region. Perhaps I would have a Parliament of seventy-seven individuals, eleven each from the seven Districts. Any party that received over 10percent of the District vote would seat a delegate. This would mean that ten representatives would be seated from each District via direct vote. These delegates would not be compelled to vote according to the dictates of the national party. They could vote their conscience, and would be free to reach compromises within the delegation. The eleventh delegate would be selected the same way juries are chosen here: By random selection of a registered voter.

So, let's say you lived in Chittagong. Each year, you would elect ten delegates to represent your Division. Each year, by random drawing, one citizen who is registered to vote would be appointed to the delegation. The Delegation of 2011 would spend the first year of two years of their term moving between zila within the Division, rendering advisory decisions about local policy, which would be voted upon, but not carry the weight of law. In the third year of their service, in 2013, the Delegation of 2011 would represent their Division in the National Parliament.

At Parliament, the Delegation would cast one vote, and so would have to reach a compromise within the delegation itself before it cast its vote. The delegation would be considered as having a quorum if the randomly selected member was present, and any delegate who failed to show up for two votes would be fired and replaced by popular vote. The random delegate would have to be adequately compensated for the three years of compulsory service to the Delegation, so as not to pose a hardship for his or her family. After the random delegate had served his three-year term, he could run as an elected delegate, either with party backing, or as an individual, but his time of service would not count against his term limit.

From what I read, and what I understand from people I've spoken to, the average Bangladeshi understands more about the internal politics of their nation than the average individual living in most other representative democratic systems, including the United States. Therefore, with some instruction, the "Random Representative", a system that has precedent in Ancient Greece, would be a viable option.

The fact that every representative would have to spend two years cycling through the region before representing the Division would allow the group to coalesce as a decision-making force which has the best interests of the region, not the party, at heart. Representatives could be re-elected for two consecutive three-year terms, so could represent the National Delegation twice.

Imagine how that would shake things up! Imagine how that might strike the imagination of the citizens knowing that anyone, regardless of station, political connection or background, could participate in government! Imagine the varying points of view this would lend to the national dialogue.

Because most national legislators would spend the bulk of their service at the local level, these representatives would be more in touch with the needs of the individuals than career politicians. With absolute term limits of six years, the networks which develop and lead to corruption would be way more difficult to establish.

Of course, it's easy to speculate on these possibilities sitting in traffic half a world away from the problem itself. I also must admit that Dr. Seuss may not be the best source of wisdom upon which to base theories of political science. Ultimately, the job of the politician is to allow life to flow, unimpeded by chaos and injustice, or by the incompetence of government itself.

No matter how perfect the system of government, you will never elect a leader who can make every day a day of springtime flowers. That's not the function of government. Whether or not Bangladeshi politicians help the nation to move forward, the world won't stand still, nor isn't it very likely, fundamentalist Christian propaganda aside, to end any time soon.

So I guess it is up to us, both here in the US, or there in Bangladesh, either to line up behind our politicians and get stuck in traffic, or to detour onto a side street of compromise, and keep pace with the rest of the world.

—————————————

Frank Domenico Cipriani writes a weekly column in the Riverside Signal called "You Think What You Think And I'll Think What I Know." He is also the founder and CEO of The Gatherer Institute — a not-for-profit public charity dedicated to promoting respect for the environment and empowering individuals to become self-taught and self-sufficient. His most recent book, "Learning Little Hawk's Way of Storytelling", is scheduled to be released by Findhorn Press in May of 2011.