Though the term ‘meritocracy’ was first used in 1958 by Michael Young in his book Rise of the Meritocracy albeit in a pejorative manner, the positive practice of this culture dates far back in most developed nations in their efforts to harvesting the best talents for development and progress. In meritocracy, appointments are made and responsibilities are assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit), and not upon other considerations such as political affiliation and social location. A long array of research overwhelmingly supports that a nation’s development is largely contingent upon, and deeply connected to, the culture of meritocracy in higher education.
The culture of meritocracy tends to function upon, and promote, credibly recorded demonstrations of talent, and doing so only hoping to promote talent itself. However, demonstration of ‘talent’ in higher education in Bangladesh has taken entirely a different route. Over the last few decades, different models and modes of education systems focusing more on higher education in Bangladesh have been proposed and implemented to meet the changing needs and demands of the world. Unfortunately, the result is not progressive, but to a large extent proven to be retrogressive. In this context, I argue that no reform in higher education can prove successful and effective for a long time unless the very complex web of “politicocracy”—a term diametrically opposed to meritocracy—developed amid the tumultuous political practices in Bangladesh over the last three decades is addressed and subdued.
What I mean by “politicocracy” is the boiling down of all social affairs into politics, and not the other way round. The culture of “politicocracy” emerges when politics become a sole overarching unit, upon which all social affairs and activities become contingent, and to which everything in society gets subservient and subordinated. Although politics is one of dominant social institutions that exerts power and prestige, it is not the only institution that has the optimum power. In a pluralist democratic society, other institutions and agencies such as higher educational institutions and their intellectuals, civil society, special interest groups—to name a few—can also have parallel power alongside politics. The problem arises when all these human agencies become contingent upon, and submissive to, politics and not vice-versa. Politics then dictates every human agency and limits human freedom and autonomy. This problematic relation between politics and other human agencies, i.e., the subordination of the freedom of a human agency to politics, is a great hindrance to a country's development and progress.
The impasse that Bangladesh is facing today is not due to politics per se, but unfortunately a deep-rooted culture of “politicocracy.” A university professor—being an intellectual—should enjoy enough prestige, more than, or at least similar to that of a political leader. However, as “politicocracy” has taken a dominant cultural shape in Bangladesh, his/her intellectual capability and leadership role in the intellectual milieu is bogged down unless he/she subscribes to, or is submerged in, the dominant or ruling political party. He/she cannot dictate, but unfortunately is dictated by politics and its leaders, though in most cases a professor is more capable than the political leader(s).
The long-term effects of “politicocracy” are quite remarkable and striking. First, politics transcends all barriers and enter into day to day life of people. All social contracts and relations such as marriage, business, codes of conduct, family relations etc., are shaped by, and organized under, the banner of politics. Politics becomes an axis around which people organize their activities and behave as “political beings” rather than social being of individual standing.
Second, “politicocracy” limits freedom and liberty since no new thought for development and prosperity flourishes as it should. As politics dictates everything, people cannot think beyond their narrow political dogma. Thinking process of most people is bogged down to a narrow political boundary. They cannot enjoy freedom beyond that limited political prison.
Third, “politicocracy” leads to a normalization of power. Important human traits, such as honesty, intellectuality, integrity, sincerity etc. get less value, while political affiliation with and closeness to political leaders and bureaucracy become a huge market currency. People gradually run after this political currency, and leave the essential traits, the traits which are of paramount need for development and progress. Political influence and power on every human being gradually becomes normalized, and people accept it as a ‘norm’ for the society. While in a democratic society legal institutions are supposed to operate freely and authoritatively, “politicocracy” makes them subservient to politics and its leaders. Society then witnesses gross injustice, godfathers and money politics, as well as oppression of political minorities. “Unthinkable” then becomes “thinkable” and breaking the norms becomes a norm.
Fourth, “politicocracy” hinders an emergence of a vibrant civil society and other human agencies to exert positive social change. As ruling party remains more busy with confronting opposition, so does the opposition party, facing and retorting confrontation from both position and opposition become the main feature of the society, and that leaves a very narrow scope for a vibrant civil society to emerge.
Fifth, politics become a lucrative career at that time. Students in higher education put more emphasis on being a leader of a political party's student wing than on studying hard for better future. Since in politicocracy getting a job is increasingly dependent more on having political links than on better academic records or merits, many students start to think and subscribe to the idea that politics will—though a highly rugged way to travel—provide a better future than doing well in education. A pathologic culture develops in which doing well in higher education has less market currency than having a good political career. In other words, education and merit will have less or no value unless there is any political link. Getting closeness to the political leaders to woo their favor and to earn their unequivocal support beyond ethical limits then becomes an ultimate aim in life for many students. Gradually, politics permeates over all educational institutions. Political slogan, rather than study, becomes the main activity in campus. As politics dictates everything, teachers too for their promotion, tenure, and other facilities usually sell off their dignity to the dominant political leaders or parties and try to buy a new political flavor for their career. Gradually, politics becomes an overarching framework under which everything gets boiled. Because of the culture of “politicocracy”, many students get degree but without proper qualities to face challenges of the modern days. Since politics gets supreme power on campus in few hands, other students tend to be precluded and thereafter a sound academic atmosphere for them is also compromised.
Sixth, as the culture of “politicocracy” reigns society, people become more interested in developing traits of politics—such as chanting great slogans to appease and extol political leaders, eulogizing own political party, nurturing lobbying capacity, sometimes using arms and violence to influence and dictate local vicinity—than human traits for social and economic development such as honesty, knowledge, patriotism, civic sense, and so forth.
What we have been witnessing over last three decades in Bangladesh is that everything in the nation has been boiled down to politics, and not the other way round. “Politicocracy” has grown so deeply and pervasively in the entire fabrics of the society that the much needed meritocracy for the nation’s progress has embraced an early death. Any kind of reform in higher education will go in vain unless this very nexus of “politicocracy” is subdued and replaced with a sound culture of meritocracy. Then, this will allow people to express their will freely and meaningfully, and to explore and flourish their talents vigorously. People and their merits and knowledge will then dictate, and not be dictated by, politics. In changing the academic culture towards the right direction lays the future progress of Bangladesh.
* Md Saidul Islam (PhD, York, Canada) is an assistant professor of Sociology at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He can be reached at:
[email protected].
*
Though the term ‘meritocracy’ was first used in 1958 by Michael Young in his book Rise of the Meritocracy albeit in a pejorative manner, the positive practice of this culture dates far back in most developed nations in their efforts to harvesting the best talents for development and progress. In meritocracy, appointments are made and responsibilities are assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit), and not upon other considerations such as political affiliation and social location. A long array of research overwhelmingly supports that a nation’s development is largely contingent upon, and deeply connected to, the culture of meritocracy in higher education.
The culture of meritocracy tends to function upon, and promote, credibly recorded demonstrations of talent, and doing so only hoping to promote talent itself. However, demonstration of ‘talent’ in higher education in Bangladesh has taken entirely a different route. Over the last few decades, different models and modes of education systems focusing more on higher education in Bangladesh have been proposed and implemented to meet the changing needs and demands of the world. Unfortunately, the result is not progressive, but to a large extent proven to be retrogressive. In this context, I argue that no reform in higher education can prove successful and effective for a long time unless the very complex web of “politicocracy”—a term diametrically opposed to meritocracy—developed amid the tumultuous political practices in Bangladesh over the last three decades is addressed and subdued.
What I mean by “politicocracy” is the boiling down of all social affairs into politics, and not the other way round. The culture of “politicocracy” emerges when politics become a sole overarching unit, upon which all social affairs and activities become contingent, and to which everything in society gets subservient and subordinated. Although politics is one of dominant social institutions that exerts power and prestige, it is not the only institution that has the optimum power. In a pluralist democratic society, other institutions and agencies such as higher educational institutions and their intellectuals, civil society, special interest groups—to name a few—can also have parallel power alongside politics. The problem arises when all these human agencies become contingent upon, and submissive to, politics and not vice-versa. Politics then dictates every human agency and limits human freedom and autonomy. This problematic relation between politics and other human agencies, i.e., the subordination of the freedom of a human agency to politics, is a great hindrance to a country's development and progress.
The impasse that Bangladesh is facing today is not due to politics per se, but unfortunately a deep-rooted culture of “politicocracy.” A university professor—being an intellectual—should enjoy enough prestige, more than, or at least similar to that of a political leader. However, as “politicocracy” has taken a dominant cultural shape in Bangladesh, his/her intellectual capability and leadership role in the intellectual milieu is bogged down unless he/she subscribes to, or is submerged in, the dominant or ruling political party. He/she cannot dictate, but unfortunately is dictated by politics and its leaders, though in most cases a professor is more capable than the political leader(s).
The long-term effects of “politicocracy” are quite remarkable and striking. First, politics transcends all barriers and enter into day to day life of people. All social contracts and relations such as marriage, business, codes of conduct, family relations etc., are shaped by, and organized under, the banner of politics. Politics becomes an axis around which people organize their activities and behave as “political beings” rather than social being of individual standing.
Second, “politicocracy” limits freedom and liberty since no new thought for development and prosperity flourishes as it should. As politics dictates everything, people cannot think beyond their narrow political dogma. Thinking process of most people is bogged down to a narrow political boundary. They cannot enjoy freedom beyond that limited political prison.
Third, “politicocracy” leads to a normalization of power. Important human traits, such as honesty, intellectuality, integrity, sincerity etc. get less value, while political affiliation with and closeness to political leaders and bureaucracy become a huge market currency. People gradually run after this political currency, and leave the essential traits, the traits which are of paramount need for development and progress. Political influence and power on every human being gradually becomes normalized, and people accept it as a ‘norm’ for the society. While in a democratic society legal institutions are supposed to operate freely and authoritatively, “politicocracy” makes them subservient to politics and its leaders. Society then witnesses gross injustice, godfathers and money politics, as well as oppression of political minorities. “Unthinkable” then becomes “thinkable” and breaking the norms becomes a norm.
Fourth, “politicocracy” hinders an emergence of a vibrant civil society and other human agencies to exert positive social change. As ruling party remains more busy with confronting opposition, so does the opposition party, facing and retorting confrontation from both position and opposition become the main feature of the society, and that leaves a very narrow scope for a vibrant civil society to emerge.
Fifth, politics become a lucrative career at that time. Students in higher education put more emphasis on being a leader of a political party's student wing than on studying hard for better future. Since in politicocracy getting a job is increasingly dependent more on having political links than on better academic records or merits, many students start to think and subscribe to the idea that politics will—though a highly rugged way to travel—provide a better future than doing well in education. A pathologic culture develops in which doing well in higher education has less market currency than having a good political career. In other words, education and merit will have less or no value unless there is any political link. Getting closeness to the political leaders to woo their favor and to earn their unequivocal support beyond ethical limits then becomes an ultimate aim in life for many students. Gradually, politics permeates over all educational institutions. Political slogan, rather than study, becomes the main activity in campus. As politics dictates everything, teachers too for their promotion, tenure, and other facilities usually sell off their dignity to the dominant political leaders or parties and try to buy a new political flavor for their career. Gradually, politics becomes an overarching framework under which everything gets boiled. Because of the culture of “politicocracy”, many students get degree but without proper qualities to face challenges of the modern days. Since politics gets supreme power on campus in few hands, other students tend to be precluded and thereafter a sound academic atmosphere for them is also compromised.
Sixth, as the culture of “politicocracy” reigns society, people become more interested in developing traits of politics—such as chanting great slogans to appease and extol political leaders, eulogizing own political party, nurturing lobbying capacity, sometimes using arms and violence to influence and dictate local vicinity—than human traits for social and economic development such as honesty, knowledge, patriotism, civic sense, and so forth.
What we have been witnessing over last three decades in Bangladesh is that everything in the nation has been boiled down to politics, and not the other way round. “Politicocracy” has grown so deeply and pervasively in the entire fabrics of the society that the much needed meritocracy for the nation’s progress has embraced an early death. Any kind of reform in higher education will go in vain unless this very nexus of “politicocracy” is subdued and replaced with a sound culture of meritocracy. Then, this will allow people to express their will freely and meaningfully, and to explore and flourish their talents vigorously. People and their merits and knowledge will then dictate, and not be dictated by, politics. In changing the academic culture towards the right direction lays the future progress of Bangladesh.
* Md Saidul Islam (PhD, York, Canada) is an assistant professor of Sociology at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
