Democracy can be both vulnerable and endurable. Vulnerability arises from governance crises, elites’ incompatibility with basic democratic rule, and all kinds of human frailties developed by rulers’ irrational behaviours and myopic decisions. Commonly, resistance to misrule and elected leaders’ absurdities create conditions for systemic and extra-systemic changes or revolutions. The crisis of legitimacy in all its manifestations works against the longevity of governments. Apart from the electoral legitimacy that helps form a government, psychological legitimacy, a part of performance legitimacy, makes situations more fertile for mass rebellion.

Small incidents or faulty decisions the leaders make prepare grounds for major upheavals. Bangladesh’s latest event shows how a government elected a few months ago could face the wrath of students and people. They revolted against the Sheikh Hasina government’s decision to implement the 30 percent reservation quota for the children of liberation fighters—Muktibahinini, perceived as the Awami League Party members.

Legitimacy crisis

Political awareness has both positive and negative sides. A ruler’s positive picture provides governmental stability, whereas an egregious picture fuels instability. Popular consciousness holds governments accountable. Any democratic government that ignores widespread sensitivity and rights loses its moral ground. Thomas Hill Green, a political philosopher, writes, “Human consciousness postulates liberty, liberty involves rights, rights demand the state”. According to him, the state is organic to the elements of consciousness and rights, and the state must “hinder the hindrances” that come in the way of liberty. John Locke, much before Green, gave people the right to revolt if the government failed to be legitimate and responsible for protecting their rights. Thus, democracy is as attractive a concept and practice as it is impregnated with seeds of movement.

Holding periodic elections, along with the design of power separation, is for controlling disruption or breakdown of government or even the political system. Elections, too, demand people’s consciousness because they are expected to circulate elites to provide a safety valve for the system. If different methods and excuses plunder the elections, the scope for extreme actions becomes inevitable. Many instances in South Asia, Latin America and Africa have proved that legitimacy claimed on the grounds of electoral victory alone is weird, as people rise to revolt sooner or later if leaders fail to be sensitive. A few days ago, the Colombian president was forced to resign when his legitimacy grounds became suspect. Democracy contains the sparkle of fire that needs to be carefully handled.

Movements are violent and non-violent, and their methods vary depending on their very nature. Democracy produced by violent upheavals is short-lived, as it is fraught with uncertain elements and is not conducive to the smooth functioning of a political system. Moreover, in countries where rulers and systems are organic to each other—arguing that one is exclusive to the other—the fall of rulers would also be the fall of the regime. In Nepal, the monarchy was identified with the regime's endurance created by the king. When people revolted against the regime, the monarchy became weak despite the king’s confidence that his grip on power would not dwindle, even when the people rejected the Panchayat system. As King Gyanendra failed to fathom the anger and resentment of people against his authoritarian proclivities, both the monarchy and the regime collapsed.

South Asian democratic crises

In Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, people involved in the movement seemed to be sensitive to the cause of democracy. In addition to rooting out the system, they also didn’t allow the army to wield power after the ouster of leaders Sheikh Hasina and Gotabaya Rajapaksha. They soon displayed their maturity in realising the need for communal harmony and peace despite the vandalisation of Hindu temples and houses of minority communities in Bangladesh. The choice of a scholar, Professor Muhammad Yunus, in spite of his animosity with Hasina, augured well from a democratic point of view.

Bangladesh, like Sri Lanka, is expected to return to electoral politics and maintain constitutional order soon. However, the agitators and other parties must learn a lesson: Winning elections by foul means would be dangerous. Hasina’s greatest failure was to concentrate power in her own hands, depriving her political rivals of the fight for election. She used draconian methods to decimate opposition. Her decent track record of faster economic development, making Bangladesh a development model for South Asia, has been overshadowed by her authoritarian governance style. Nevertheless, Hasina’s party is likely to continue to be a significant force because of its long history and tradition, which gave birth to the Republic of Bangladesh.

South Asian countries, in general, have demonstrated that any form of authoritarian dictatorship is not a substitute for democracy. The military in Pakistan might have continued to play politics from behind; there, too, the civilian’s share of power is not absent. However, it is assumed that in any system, democratic or authoritarian, the military, which is one of the core elements of national security, shows its influence in politics. Although the elected government is supreme in India, it has to consult the army while making vital security decisions.

In South Asia, democracy suffers from parties and politicians whose minimum moral standards are blurred, causing them to be highly self-centred and parochial in running the system. In Nepal, bad image projections of leaders are fraught with the danger of being overturned by quick events, as in the past. People easily link external factors with political upheavals in countries of the region. However, the governance crisis and negative image of leaders seem crucial for electoral defeats or government toppling.

Hasina’s allegation that the US was behind the movement against her is untenable, despite her not-too-friendly relationship with the country. Her view that the US wanted to use St Martin’s Island and the Bay of Bengal for security purposes lacks veracity and cannot be the sole reason for her ouster. It is a truism that rulers generally try to find fault with foreigners when they are under pressure at home or are overthrown by popular movements.