A wise political analyst once remarked that the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting. Looking at the culture and practice that our political parties have ingrained in their systems one wonders which of the above they follow within the parties.

In last 25 years or so the two major political parties in Bangladesh have had the same person at the helm even though they claim they have a constitution of their own and that their leaders are the choice of their members. The claim begs the question how the choice was exercised by the members?

Did the members choose from a list of contenders for the office or was the choice thrust upon them? Is there a unique consensus among the rank and file of the parties to have one person continue as party chief because there is no alternative or has it been so because no challenge has been allowed by the party hierarchy to change the status quo? These are not rhetorical questions deserving rhetorical answers, but real questions that pose a paradox to what our major political parties say in public and practice in private. The questions on preaching and practice of democracy become more important when our political parties bring the country to a standstill crying to establish democracy in the country when their own parties do not follow it in running their own affairs. These are questions that the parties themselves should raise to look for changes in their future and seek greater control over their own affairs.

Contrast the situation with our big neighbour India that is idolised by some as the largest democracy in the world. In last 30 years — from 1981 — Indian Congress Party had seen five presidents of the party, all elected by the party's central committee members (AICC Working Committee) who themselves were elected by their respective area party members. The main opposition in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had seen 12 party presidents since its birth in 1980 all elected by their party members. The terms of the presidents of the respective parties are different, ranging from two to three years. Some presidents of the two parties were reelected also.

The constitution of the Indian Congress clearly lays down the process for election of its President, and the term for which a President shall be elected. With the exception of the current president of Indian National Congress, Sonia Gandhi, most presidents have served for a maximum of four one-year terms. Of these presidents, only Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi have served both as Prime Minister and President of the party.

For the BJP the process for election of the President is similar. The National President is elected by an electoral college consisting of Members of the National Council and Members of the State Councils as mentioned. The party's constitution strictly stipulates that no person can serve as President of the party for more than to consecutive terms.

It is not that our major political parties do not have constitutions of their own, and process for election of office bearers from grassroots to national level. There are clearly written rules for formation of party committees and councils including the requirement for holding the annual or triennial conventions for election of the office bearers at each level. The gap, however, between what is prescribed in these constitutions and what the parties practice is huge.

According to a research report on political culture of our major political parties, neither Awami League nor BNP held their party councils and convention regularly. Even if councils and conventions were held, election of party leaders did not take place. The National Executive Committee and Electoral College of the main opposition BNP depend fully on the party Chairperson for supreme guidance. Similarly, the Working Committee of the Awami League depends entirely for planning and other activities on the party President. As the party decisions are in the hand of the party chiefs, the party’s internal organisational strength has been weakened and reliant upon one person. BNP held its annual convention in 2009 after a gap of 16 years. The Awami League did not hold district level councils for years citing a number of obstacles such as unfriendly environment in those years, and need for preparation for national elections later.

Ascendancy of a single person in the party hierarchy and his/her continuation in the leadership of the party can be understood where charisma precedes all other qualifications. Such leaders exude so much power through their personalities that the parties become totally powerless without them. Nehru in India and Nelson Mandela in South Africa are modern examples of these leaders. But none of these leaders clung to their party leadership despite entreaties from their members to continue to lead their parties. Instead, they fostered other leaders, and asked their parties to choose new leadership following the democratic process of election.

Unfortunately, this has not happened in Bangladesh. The leaders of the government party and the main opposition (although technically not in the Parliament) remain key sources of power in their parties. They were initially voted to lead the respective parties to patch parties that were splintered by internal squabbles but also to gain from the reflected charisma of their respective party founders. Today, they have de facto icons of their parties who are viewed as fountains of all authority and decision making in their respective parties.

It is ironic that a country where political parties hold sieges, sit-down strikes, and indefinite shutdowns asking for democratic rights in national life, they blithely submit to authoritarian practices and suppression of democratic rights within their own parties. None of the two major parties realise that a political party that does not nurture democratic values within the party cannot be expected to implement these values when running a government. To them, party and the government are two sides of the same coin. The internal character of the party spills over when running government and all institutions that it touches.

The cast of characters in our political scene and the work ethics of our political parties including their character will not change simply with wishes for changes. Since politics is all about power no one willingly would like to give it up unless the society and people force these changes. Sometimes the changes come from a revolution but absent that from legislation. Making our political parties more democratic in practice will require state intervention with necessary changes in law that will ask for proof of periodic election of office bearers at least at national level as conditions for registration for national elections. Other changes may require amending the constitutions of the political parties stipulating term limitations of party chiefs and top officials. These may be a pie in the sky type of hope, but they can bring changes to our political culture of cronyism, patronage, and authoritarianism.

The writer is a US based political commentator and analyst.

By arrangement with The Daily Star/ANN