Limits of acceptability

“No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition,” said Benjamin Disraeli. The notable 19th century British prime minister is incorrect and irrelevant as far as Bangladesh is concerned.

An argument can be made that there is no need for an opposition. Parliamentary practices, especially in the 21st century, have developed by working tirelessly to first lessen, then altogether remove, the effectiveness of the opposition. At least the 10th parliament cannot be accused of hypocrisy or lies: It has rid the country of the pretence of an opposition.

The current one was part of the ruling alliance. Its members are ministers, its chairman is the prime minister’s special envoy. The party was going to boycott what it called a “farcical election,” then joined it under the leadership of the new opposition leader while its head was nowhere to be seen or heard from.

It would not be a stretch to say that it has been colonised by the ruling party. The other big collective of opposition comes in the shape of rebel Awami League leaders who ran as independent candidates. None of these will boycott parliament and gleefully take to the streets to make a violent point as the members of AL, BNP, and Jamaat have done when in opposition.

The country should unite to thank the current government for preserving the sanctity of the constitution and bestowing this kindness unto its long-suffering people.

However, every hero, real or imaginary, needs a villain, or the perception of one. With the BNP-Jamaat alliance no longer a legitimate opposition after the controversial 10th general election, the new AL government is an absolute force sans any antagonist.

The former and their undesirable activities have mercifully been expelled from the sphere of governance. The cost of achieving this, regardless of its permanence, is that the demigods of the latter have been elevated to the status of gods, making them wholly impervious to the law. They should, however, expect stricter scrutiny of every single one of their actions hereafter.

The AL has been in power for five years, during which time it pointed fingers at the evil that was, from foundations of buildings being shaken to cause them to collapse, to the issuance of permits for these buildings, from the persecution of minorities to the prevalence of anti-liberation sentiments, being the work of members of the previous nefarious regime.

Earthquakes, floods, and other acts of God, and all acts of men, were their fault. There was good reason to be convinced that corrupt, inept, and criminal organisations were so wholly responsible.

Such convenient excuses to deflect attention from its own failings – of which there were many, as there were during the BNP’s preceding rule – have been negated by the BNP-Jamaat problem having been left out of the latest election equation.

Past failings causing present ills too are now the doings of the AL, owing to the last half a decade of its governance. Even though the media and the educated and elite classes are not shouting it from the rooftops yet, all fingers are firmly pointed at a government that is under the microscope.

Its strong rhetoric only masks its many weaknesses. It can be hoped that this will prompt extra vigilance on its part to ensure good governance, but past experience informs that this will certainly not be the case.

Calling a hat a chair works for only so long. By ordinary standards, this time limit has expired. If Bangladesh is thought to be an extraordinary case, then that limit is fast approaching.

For a start, the AL needs to control its own people, whether it is the actions of its rabid student-wings – less a part of the political process and more a personal militia force of the party – or the behaviour of its members during lavish campaigns and public events.

The other parties need to do so as well, but they are of little consequence as they are, effectively, no longer part of the system of governance. Therefore, if the AL leaders are unable or unwilling to assert themselves on members of their party and rid themselves of the plethora of negative elements that abound, they cannot be expected to give leadership to the people of Bangladesh, the less than half of the less than half of the registered voters that elected them and the others alike.

The citizens, whose tolerance, it has to be hoped if not believed, has been stretched to its extreme limits, will be watching.