BNP is not the way forward

Sushma Swaraj’s recent visit to Bangladesh brings to attention an interesting change within BNP’s political compass. The fact that the party convinced its chairperson, a former prime minister, to call upon a visiting foreign minister of India, explicitly indicates that they are ready go an extra mile to convince our neighbour that it will no longer harness the anti-Indian political equation it often advocates. This, to an extent, is a blatant attempt to convince India that BNP is not a hostile alternative for its interest within the Bangladeshi political landscape.

Moreover, given that the acting general secretary of BNP has threatened a tough political movement in August, the changing political dynamic provokes us to ask a pertinent question: Is BNP the way forward for Bangladesh?

Before I indulge further to evaluate the issue, it is essential to highlight the central challenges I have faced while articulating this piece. Mark Twain, the prominent American author from the 19th century, once said: “The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” This novel judgement, in essence, identifies the fundamental challenge that any political analyst or historian encounters. That is, how do we articulate an objective assessment of any socio-political phenomenon without deriving the logic from our personal biases?

Of course, this is only a concern when individual opinion or preference motivates one to deduce an argument that cannot be supported through evidence. Thus, while articulating this piece, I have faced a similar challenge of not influencing my logic with what I feel due to my ideological position. Rather, the aim is to argue why people, who do not necessarily agree with my ideological position, should also not endorse BNP in its present form.

I believe, in a secular Bangladesh, BNP is not ready to deliver. But that is not the core of my reasoning. In any free society, it is an inherent inalienable right of individuals to converge to an ideological position that they seem fit. Hence, their choice of any political party is influenced both by their ideological position and their expectation of the future. Consequently, it is that pursuit of a socially acceptable future that has motivated this article, since political parties remain the most pivotal vessel in any democratic arrangement on which societies drift towards unexplored shores.

Hence, what is wrong with BNP being that vessel of change? The issue is that the political deadlock we presently experience is largely influenced by events that took place between 2001 and 2006, and there is no indication that the future will be any different if BNP ever receives the mandate to govern.

Three issues are important to highlight here. First, political parties will always fail to find a common ground if politics remain a zero-sum affair, especially when it means that the losing side can face extermination. In that context, the August 21 grenade attack in 2004 on then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina, essentially meant that the thin thread of trust between the two dominant parties developed during 1983 and 2001 was severed. The event that appeared more malicious is the attempt by the BNP to articulate a farce investigation to establish that Awami League was the principal organisation behind such an attack. This, to a large extent, raised grave suspicions that BNP had much to hide and fear from the results of a genuine scrutiny of the incident.

Second, the institutional arrangement that was conceptualised for upholding free, fair, and credible elections, ie the caretaker government, received a major blow when BNP started to develop a flawed voter list and alter the retirement age of chief justice to ensure their preferred individual becomes the premier of an interim government. More importantly, if the neutrality and effectiveness of any institutional arrangement is, in part, shaped by its design, it is also largely influenced by the intentions of its leadership.

Accordingly, when BNP interfered with the selection of an acceptable head of the caretaker government, it instrumentally raised question of the institution’s future relevance. This, overall, was an uncalled-for act as it conceptually nullified the only common ground the major political parties achieved in 1996 through intense political turmoil.

Third, although AL demonstrated considerable success in containing Islamic fundamentalism, attaining macro-economic stability, and mobilising substantial investments in infrastructure, there were, nonetheless, significant weaknesses in its capacity to articulate institutional reforms needed to improve the state of governance in Bangladesh. This issue is even acknowledged by some AL stalwarts such as Finance Minister AMA Muhith, who often publicly displays his frustration with the various malpractices in state-owned banks. Yet, the question of interest here is, can the BNP-led alliance deliver anything new on this front? If one reconciles with past experiences and the quality of leadership it has promoted in recent years, the prospects of BNP having any capacity to improve the state of governance are uninviting.

Even if one evaluates the political rhetoric of its leaders, it is clear that while they leave no stone unturned to mock and demean the “Digital Bangladesh Vision,” over the last six years, BNP has failed to conceptualise a comprehensive development agenda for the future. Hence, their sole strategy so far, has been to bank on the anti-incumbency sentiments that generally accumulate in the South Asian political space, without highlighting any new direction that our society needs.

On the whole, Chanakya, the noted Indian philosopher from 4th century BC, argued that: “Learn from the mistakes of others … you can’t live long enough to make them all yourselves.” Unfortunately, BNP over the years have failed to project itself as a credible vessel of positive change, since there is no evidence indicating that it has learned from its past mistakes, or has the necessary capacity or leadership to learn from the mistakes of AL. Therefore, in contemporary Bangladeshi politics, there is no reason to believe or advocate that BNP is a valid alternative to the current government of our polity.