Weak regimes
Dynasty regimes are weak at the top; and internally there is lack of discipline. This happens when the top original hero is no more, and his/her successor might not have the maturity to handle the situation in a newly emerged nation.
Bangladesh is under the grip of not one, but two dynasty rules, for nearly four decades. The public expectations are not being realised, as anticipated, and the entrepreneurship thrust lacks drive. The top leadership rely on safety rules [sycophancy]; and the public services are polarised politically. The general elections are not open-ended, and the democratic principles are diluted in subjective ways.
It means, cosmically, that the time for change had not yet arrived; and the young nation is still under tutorial and training, to be able to enjoy mentally the full meaning of freedom from serfdom. Hero-worshipping [of the successors] has its handicaps -- the full meaning of liberation is yet to be realised.
The caretaker government tried the Minus Two formula in vain. Now there is only one choice left for option: minus one at a time. Foreign investment is shy when two dynasties dominate the national stage, decade after decade. A sort of stagnation sets in, with typical style of governance. Inspiration is sought from the past; not looking towards the future. Chanting of past names becomes a sort of indolence, and the young generation feel throttled.
How to get out of this vicious trap? The caretaker governance principle was tried. The awareness factor of the majority of the electorate is below par (for obvious reasons of marginal living and lack of education).
The basic weakness remains: how to live with less politics.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments