What can the good people do?

Sadeq Khan

In an article published 12 February 2014 in The Express Tribune, scholar William B. Milam, a former US ambassador to Bangladesh painted a very pessimistic picture about the prevailing situation in Bangladesh, and termed the January 5 elections here as a “revolution by stealth” for the “triumph of evil”.

He quoted the eighteenth century philosopher Edmund Burke to note the sound bite most famously attributed to the latter: “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”, and not that the great danger Burke saw in all revolutions was the potential for the emergence of authoritarian, repressive government with unchecked power. Milam inferred: “I suspect, however, that he would be most concerned about the revolutions by stealth. In this category, Bangladesh is the most egregious, and ironically, the most likely to produce a purely authoritarian state. A one-party election has produced a one-party state. The major opposition party is in both intellectual and organisational disarray, which is, of course, aided by the government crackdown on opponents and dissenters in the media, and the scapegoat religious parties. Civil society is both fragmented and cowed. The government has rewritten the narrative history of the country’s troubled birth to suit its own purposes. This is surely a Burkean situation: the good people must come together (associate) to stop the bad people, who are together, if those good people are not to fall one by one. Bangladesh, which was once hailed as a paragon of political and social modernisation in the Islamic world, will join the overcrowded ranks of one-party authoritarian states with corrupted, extractive institutions, which real modernisation will continually elude if good people remain supine.”

Early election
The voice of the opposition in Bangladesh, Begum Khaleda Zia had also termed the success of the boycott of January 5 election as “a silent revolution” by the vast majority of the electorate. But in effect, as Milam observed, it has simply made space for an authoritarian counter-revolution. Albeit “Democracy’s no-show at Bangladesh’s elections” (Dr. Parnini, University of Malaysia), is now a recurrent theme of debates in European parliaments and in U.S. Congress. In an official resolution, the European Parliament said that the European Union “Sincerely regrets the fact that the Bangladeshi Parliament and the political parties did not manage to agree on an inclusive mechanism for the elections, and calls on the government and the opposition to put the best interests of Bangladesh first as a matter of urgency and to find a compromise which would give the Bangladeshi people a chance to express their democratic choice in a representative way; believes that all options should be considered, including an early election if all legitimate political parties are willing to stand and offer voters a choice; (and) Calls on the EU to use all the means at its disposal to assist such a process if requested and to make full use of its resources, in particular the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument for Stability; calls also on its Directorate for Democracy Support to make Bangladesh a focal point for activities of the Office for Promotion of Parliamentary Democracy (OPPD).”
In the House of Commons in the U.K., members from both sides of the House noted how the advances made by Bangladesh towards millennium development goals and particularly its achievement in reducing the poverty gap ratio from 17% to 6.5% is being “undermined by the country’s own political leadership”, and proposed “that the United Nations and other international organisations should put pressure on the Bangladeshi Government to stop harassing and jeering the Opposition.”

Mounting pressures
The House further heard that “Julie Bishop, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, has called for new elections, stating: The government and the opposition must take up their shared responsibility to hold a new, fully contested and transparent election as soon as possible. The deputy spokesperson of the US State Department has said that the results of the just-concluded elections do not appear to credibly express the will of the Bangladeshi people, and called for new elections to be held as soon as possible. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on parties to resume dialogue and to demonstrate calm and restraint. In Germany, the Federal Foreign Office stated that the election was an extremely poor reflection of the electorate’s will. Even the Japanese ambassador to Dhaka, Shiro Sadoshima, said that the political leadership in Bangladesh, regardless of their positions, should immediately initiate serious efforts to provide Bangladeshi people with a voting opportunity for making political choice in a manner that responds to their aspiration.
The debate concluded: “Bangladesh is an important partner for the United Kingdom and we will continue to support its people in their aspirations, as we see them, for a more stable, prosperous and democratic future. In doing that, however, it is important that we never shy away from delivering tough messages to the political leadership to try and ensure that those expectations are fulfilled.”
Such tough messages are unlikely to make much difference to the incumbents in the “one-party state” evolved in Bangladesh. Backed staunchly by India and somewhat tepidly by Russia, China, Nepal and Vietnam, the authoritarian prime minister of Bangladesh, as The Economist noted in its February 8 issue, “looks increasingly content”. The Economist concluded: “Those who set foreign policy in Delhi are anxious to prevent Bangladesh becoming, as it was before, a haven for insurgent groups that operate in India. They want Bangladesh to resist the sort of Islamist extremism prevalent in Pakistan. And they want it to help limit the flow of illegal Bangladeshi migrants flooding into India for work. Sheikh Hasina shares India’s aims, while doing everything to flatten the opposition at home. It bodes ill for democratic government. But the state of the opposition ­pinned down in court, on the streets and in parliament ­suggests a modicum of outward calm may prevail for a while.”

Pressures being noticed
It is not that disapproval and pressure from the international community is without effect. Strategic analysts in Delhi are beginning to weigh seriously the possible impact of reduced economic aid and cooperation of the West on Bangladesh and also the implications of Delhi’s isolation from the international community on the issue of democracy in Bangladesh. As an article published by the Indian Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses observes: “The international reactions to the parliamentary elections assume significance since Bangladesh heavily depends on a number of developed countries and global organisations for development assistance, loans and trade concessions. But the tenth Jatiya Sangsad election has not succeeded to evoke positive response from them largely due to its non-participatory and violent nature.
“The US, which is the largest trading partner and a key ally of Bangladesh on counter-terrorism and global security, has clearly spoken about its disappointment over the low turnout and violence-marred elections. In a statement, the US State Department said the just-concluded elections did ‘not appear to be credibly expressed the will of the people’. It also called for fresh elections ‘as soon as possible’.
“France has called on political parties in Bangladesh to resume dialogue and demonstrate ‘calm and restraint’ to preserve the country’s democratic institutions.
“Germany said that the January 5 election was an ‘extremely poor reflection of electorate’s will’. United Kingdom’s Foreign Office Minister Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, who visited Dhaka prior to the elections and tried to persuade the squabbling political elites of Bangladesh to reach an agreement, noted that the polls were held ‘in accordance with Bangladesh’s Constitution’. But she added that the UK believes “the lack of a mature, credible election that expresses the genuine will of the voters.” The EU that provides duty-free access for nearly 60% of Bangladesh’s booming garment industry products had repeatedly urged all political parties to create congenial environment for transparent, inclusive and credible elections.

Dhaka’s strategic importance
“The secretary of Commonwealth too deprecated the ‘limited levels of participation and low voter turnout’ while the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, expressed deep concern over the massive election violence which he termed ‘unacceptable’. He also stated that election was not ‘all-inclusive’. He reiterated that the UN would continue to support Bangladesh’s democratic process ‘in accordance with the principles of inclusiveness, non-violence and dialogue’.
Unlike the major global powers which termed the polls ‘non-representative’, India – the closest regional ally of Bangladesh, recognised Sheikh Hasina’s victory despite a ‘record low voter turnout’ and supported her in staking claim to form the next government.”
An American-Bangladeshi IT professional from Minnesota saw a geopolitical chess game opening India-US chasm over Bangladesh. Writing in Asia Times on-line, he suggested: “Over the past few years a chasm has grown between India and the US (and the EU to some extent). Other than India, all other countries would like to see a democratic transition in Bangladesh where elections reflect the true choice of the people of Bangladesh. India’s unconditional support for a brutal undemocratic regime in Bangladesh is influencing Western countries, especially the US, to rethink their Bangladesh policy seen through the prism of India. India has (been)….. trying to create Afghanistan as the battlefront against Pakistan and thus fostering instability (as Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has said). It would be foolish to think US policymakers are not seeing the same signs (in Bangladesh). It is high time the US pursued a foreign policy in South Asia that satisfies the needs of the US and Bangladesh, not India’s.
“Bangladesh has become a very strategically important nation in the region in recent years. Sitting between South and Southeast Asia, it can be a bridge between these two fast growing regions. Bangladesh plays a prominent role in both the US and China’s version of the new Asian Super-highway/trade route that will connect Asian countries with an aim to boost trade and improve interconnectivity. Bangladesh is one of the largest contributors of UN peacekeeping forces and its non-government organizations like BRAC (formerly the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) and the Grameen Foundation are also using their expertise and coordinating with the US to improve the lives of women in Afghanistan.

What’s to be done?
“Until India changes it course and foster a relationship with people of Bangladesh rather than just a segment of the society, Bangladesh should examine how the intensity of relationships between US and Bangladesh can be enhanced. Closer coordination and partnership between these two countries can cement the relationship even further and help navigate the challenges ahead.”
Meanwhile, in a Senate hearing on “Prospects for Democratic Reconciliation and Workers’ Rights in Bangladesh”, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Nisha Desai Biswal deposed as follows: “Immediately after the election, we issued a strong statement… (calling) for immediate dialogue to agree on new elections as soon as possible.
“Bangladesh is a country of strategic importance to the United States.
“As the seventh-largest country by population and third-largest Muslim-majority nation, its moderate, secular democracy is one that we value and support… The United States is the biggest investor in Bangladesh and the largest single country destination for Bangladeshi apparel, the country’s largest export.
“Bangladesh’s turmoil has created uncertainty with foreign investors and impacted economic growth…We call upon Bangladesh’s leadership to provide space that enables peaceful expression of political views. At the same time, we call upon the opposition to use such space responsibly.”
The suffering people of this country wonder: How will such wise “suggestions” and wishful “prospects” translate into reality, without a genuine revolution brought about by the internal dynamics of the nation-state? What can the good people do?

Source: Weekly Holiday