Mohsin Siddique in Washington
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” -Leo Tolstoy, in Anna Karenina
Tolstoy’s keen observation applies to nations as well: we seem to find new ways to make our political life miserable. After 24-years of struggle Bangladeshis freed themselves from the yoke of a political ideology fundamentally antithetical to democracy. A decisive win in a Liberation War that exacted heavy price in suffering and lost lives brought that inglorious phase to an end; so we thought. Almost from the start anti-democratic forces asserted themselves.
Now a pattern have taken shape: following sort of a remission for a while, soon autocracy reappears like cancer. The election of January 5, 2014 may have produced yet another mutation of it: a parliament without opposition! Its nature and impact will be unveiled over time, but it is difficult not to be apprehensive. Awami League (AL) is aggressively touting its victory, claiming credit for a successful national election. Not willing to legitimizing AL’s scheme, international organizations refused to send vote observers as they did in the past, so it is difficult to be certain, but, even according to the Election Commission barely 41% of voters showed up. Many independent journalists suggested that participation was about 20%, compared to 85% in the 2008 election. Major western countries, important markets for Bangladesh’s garment industries, are settling into uneasy relations with the government while pressure is increasing to hold a real election soon.
The AL’s contention
AL’s contention that a neutral care-taker government is not necessary in a democracy is correct in the abstract, but dishonest in the concrete. It obfuscates the real problem: deep-seated mistrust between AL and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) rooted in the 1975 assassination of the Father of the Nation, most members of his immediate family and virtually the entire senior leadership of AL. BNP & its creator, late Gen. Zia, the first military ruler to come to power in a coup, both emerged out of that tragic episode, and the animus arising from those events has become a toxic ingredient in Bangladesh politics.
Thus, BNP & many others did not believe that a free and fair election was possible with AL in power and in a position to influence the outcome of the election. AL held similar position when it wore the other shoe. Until a closure of that ugly chapter is achieved and the political interest of the nation supersedes personal grief, status quo will prevail. Previously, to bypass mistrust induced stalemate consensus was reached that free and fair election requires a nonpartisan care taker government to be in charge. This time AL chose to ignore it, and in protest most of the political parties boycotted the election.
In spite of BNP’s genetics, AL or other political parties have not questioned its legitimacy. Free of such constraints, it would be a great gift to the nation for AL to rise above the personal hurts and normalize relations and create preconditions to make the non-party care taker government to conduct elections really unnecessary. AL also needs to shed the attitude that since it led the Liberation War, it alone knows what is good for the country and has the right to state-power as long as it wants. No one questions AL’s leadership in liberating the country. But, it ought to recognize that except for a small number of traitors, overwhelming majority of the people supported & sacrificed for our liberation and most did not belong to AL. People, irrespective of their affiliations, were the agents of this historic change, AL was its agency. On its part, BNP needs to become a political party of & for Bangladesh, and stop being nostalgic about Pakistan. BNP’s real drawback is its dependence on Jamaat-e-Islam, hell bent on imposing sharia rule in Bangladesh. The Jamaat’s desire to reunite with Pakistan and remains strongly anti-Bangladesh is deplorable. It is difficult to comprehend how such an entity can be allowed to operate for long, or how BNP can justify its association with it. BNP’s viability hinges very much on whether or not it will dissociate from Jamaat. In the mean time, the non-productive relations of the two parties are holding the country hostage must end. Failure to do so will imply that AL & BNP prefer taking their chances in muddy waters.
Not too far part
It is worth noting that in spite of the personal acrimony and rhetoric, in policy matters BNP and AL are not too far apart. AL’s ‘secularism’ has moved closer to BNP’s: both supports making Islam the dominant religion of the state, making people of all other faiths into virtual second class citizens. Both are devoted to staying on the good side of Middle Eastern potentates, even though they vehemently opposed formation of Bangladesh. Indeed, that door was opened by the Father of the Nation himself: in part not to be seen as too pro-Indian, even though he has been seeking India’s assistance long before 1971 and its aid and assistance were key to the quick defeat of the Pakistani military. Offer of cash & employment for Bangladesh’s surplus unskilled labour were the positive enticements. Both parties represent the bourgeoisie, are committed to neo-liberal economic policies, and are backed by different, sometimes over-lapping factions of the moneyed class. Their foreign policies are not very different: both are open to be useful to the imperialists; BNP tilts towards Pakistan, AL towards India and both allow clever foreign office men and women to try to play India & China against each other.
Post-1971 change that dominates is political violence overwhelming nation’s civic life. Stark is the lack of simple tolerance of different points of views. No moral authority exists to confront those who perpetuate a culture of bullets and machetes to settle differences. Especially condemnable is the practice of parties themselves deploying their hired thugs to attack the opposition. The surreal nature of it is often seen in pictures in the media of brazen young acolytes of parties trying to hunt down the opponents openly brandishing weapons, while the police watch, or sometimes, give them cover. Consider the absurdity: the Home Minister in the previous cabinet on several occasions instructed cadre of his party, not the police, to patrol the streets to confront the law-breakers! It is difficult to be optimistic when realization is still nonexistent that weapons are useful if the objective is subjugation, not reaching compromise or consensus, hallmark of democracy.
Trust building & democratic norms
The consequence is best exemplified in the conduct of hartal, a call for shutting down everything to express grievances. While the right of free of expression, including protests is essential in a democracy, it is not a license to violate rights of others who do not support hartal. It has now become an instrument of fascist politics often causing death and destruction of innocent bystanders. Resorting to such practices is a disgrace & criminal. This has to change for the sake of safety and security of citizens. Another election is not needed to stop this practice; all it requires is all parties to work together to come up with basic rules of engagement in a democracy: guarantee freedom of speech, including right to protest; protect the political rights of individual, and severely punish those who coerce others into participating; and, ensure that the perpetrators are penalized for violence and are required to compensate for destruction of property they cause. It is the failure of the political parties to create a safe space in civic life that engenders false consciousness among citizens that translates into such aberrations as welcoming of military junta into power by people who not long ago fought for democracy. In addition, willingness to work to build a consensus on democratic norms would be an appropriate trust-building exercise and may lead to a negotiated settlement on other outstanding issues.
The political degeneration also manifests in the disgraceful partisanship in every institution, from bureaucracy to university faculty. Parochialism takes priority over client service irrespective of party affiliation. It is common practice, for example, to assume everyone associated with the party that left office is guilty, hence legitimate target for vilification & retribution. Usual method of harassment is to file corruption cases against the departing, or at least send them off to the graveyard known as OSD (officer on special duty, but with no duty at all)! This is unheard of in a society of decent people. Public servants are just that, and not for the ‘public of their choice’, but all. A university professor cannot be effective educator by students if he/she is perceived as biased towards the members of his political party. While people are entitled to their political affiliations, professionalism demands that they keep it to themselves. Partisanship among officials and educators is sure way to discredit democracy. Political parties should disavow their partisan formations in government offices and public institutions.
AL’s proprietary claim on Bangladesh
Last January, AL ‘won’ the election, but Bangladesh lost. It should be obvious that democracy cannot work without public confidence in the opportunity to cast vote at facilities not contaminated by political biases. By removing the provision for a non-party care-taker government, mishandling the Supreme court’s decision regarding the changes, and disregarding widespread sentiment opposing the election under conditions advantageous to it alone, has caused suspicion that AL might be heading for ‘democratic dictatorship’, or preparing for a dynastic rule. Such speculation is unavoidable given the BAKSAL debacle, an example of AL’s proprietary claim on Bangladesh. If this becomes real, whatever AL may have done in the past, history will not absolve it from this act of betrayal. One conclusion is unavoidable: today’s AL is not the AL that led the Liberation War; public’s awareness of this metamorphosis of AL may very well be the legacy of the 2014 election.
Though beset by the cruelties of primitive capitalism, Bangladesh has made ‘progress’ in economic development; but it remains disappointingly backward in adopting, practicing and appreciating the benefits of democracy. Instead of peddling bastardized versions of democracy to suit the need of the party in power as in the days of Pakistan, we should adopt the simple common variety democracy: one that recognizes universal suffrage, one person one vote, & assurance of free & fair elections. Influence of money has to be eliminated by limiting spending and financing elections only with public funds. This will enable smaller parties to compete, and will make accessible plurality of views for the voters to consider. This simple democracy is not perfect, but its civilizing influence is essential for progress towards higher forms.
The pressure for the needed change towards democracy has to come from the voters. In this cycle, the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and the Bangladesh Socialist Party (BSD) made efforts to pursued AL & BNP to negotiate an agreement but failed. Members of the civil society made similar attempts too.
Democratic institutions needed
Although CPB-BSD, civic intellectual & opinion leaders are seen by most as honest brokers, they did not bring to the table any significant power of a mass movement demanding election under a neutral government. While the valiant effort of the Gonojagoron Mancha to ensure that those who committed war crimes are brought to justice is admired by the people, the absence of the youth movement in support of democracy is surprising. It is necessary for the progressives, the civil society and democratic youth to take ownership of their future. Unless the youth help shape the basic institutions of democracy, demand a civic life free of violence & coercion, sound education will not be possible, nor will justice be guaranteed.
On occasions we have shown our enthusiasm for democracy (consider the voter participation in some of the previous elections), but we also get taken-in by slick politicians selling fraud instead of democracy. No wonder in Bangladesh it remains on the critical list! Unfortunately not much intellectual energy is devoted on how to change the prevailing political culture. Leaders of a new coalition of progressives & youth that value democracy have to rescue Bangladesh from the current quagmire.
The writer is an expatriate Bangladeshi living in Washington DC.
Source: Weekly Holiday
