Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

There is a new organisation in town. That is nothing unusual. But since it calls itself the Centre for Democracy, we might as well inform ourselves that organisations of this nature appear to have a clear objective before them. It is especially in Bangladesh’s peculiar circumstances that such bodies take root and that indeed often appear to be necessary. The launch of the organisation on Wednesday was naturally characterised by a wide-ranging discussion of the ailments democracy as a political principle has been suffering from in this country, and that too for a long stretch of time. But, then again, you are quite likely to come across people who may not take kindly to the idea of democracy being in a state of bad health here. They will point to the three general elections (four, if you take the February 1996 episode into account) we have had since 1991 as evidence of our democratic tradition. In the last fourteen years, there have been civilian elected governments in office and parliament, for all the bad weather it has run into, is still in one piece. Moreover, the alacrity with which the people of Bangladesh identify themselves with one political group or another is a powerful hint of the strong base democracy has established for itself here.
   The above point is well taken. But now consider the details, the very raw features of a situation where democracy appears increasingly to be made a mockery of these days. The language used by politicians, especially in the two major political parties, remains fiery and intemperate, often degenerating into the obscene. When ministers accuse the opposition of being traitors to the cause of the country, one is appalled. Likewise, when the stalwarts of the opposition speak of overthrowing the government, one wonders whether the cause of democracy is being served by such remarks. In fact, when good, conscious citizens lament the slow death of democracy or in truth begin to believe that pluralism is simply manifested by its absence in real terms, one quite understands what they mean. The state of the dysfunctional in which the Jatiyo Sangsad finds itself, with the opposition endlessly boycotting sessions (and we trace that story all the way back to 1991 through 1996 and up until now), speaks volumes about the haemorrhaging of parliamentary or democratic politics in the country. Add to that the sheer inability or reluctance or both of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition to engage in normal, everyday, polite conversation and what you have is in effect a country effectively and badly split right down the middle. The slanging match between the speaker of Parliament and the opposition and then between him and the family of the assassinated Shah AMS Kibria is one more instance of how pallid democracy has become. It should have flowered into a state of maturity and in these fourteen years it should have developed into a system where Bangladesh could have projected itself as a symbol of hope for its own people as well as for people in other struggling nations.
   Could it be, though, that the travails democracy has been going through have to do with the mediocrity we have all been faced with, even in politics? What was it that made politicians of earlier generations look beyond their parties and what it is it now which makes the political classes around us so parochial? On television, in the newspapers, our political figures give people every reason to think they continue to live in the past. Remembering the past is a healthy thing, for it reinforces a nation’s hold on history. But trying to remould that past or look upon it as a partisan investment for the future leads to a clotting of ideas. And that is what has been happening around us.
   The Centre for Democracy may be a good way of studying the nature of Bengali politics. But is it not also true that every time such an organisation takes shape, we are made a little more conscious of how backward as a people we are turning ourselves into?

Smiles and security

The authorities have decided to impose a six-day security blanket leading up to Ekushey February around the Central Shaheed Minar. The measure is understandable in light of the increasing levels of terrorist violence in the country. No efforts should be spared in the matter of making certain that people are able to pay their respects to the 1952 martyrs in an appropriate and fitting manner. The number of security personnel deployed at the Shaheed Minar, we understand, will be especially trained to deal with suspects and suspicious movements. That as well as the installation of security cameras are steps which will surely reassure people about what they wish to do on the day, namely, pay homage to the martyrs of the Language Movement.
   Notwithstanding all these security measures which have been decided on by the government, one feels it necessary to let the authorities know that nothing should be done in the name of security, over these six days, that may lead to harassment for citizens. The frequent complaint in Bangladesh, in fact in any Third World country, has been one of less than good behaviour from those employed in security work. While it is acknowledged that securing a place from any kind of danger is normal, it is equally true that not everyone be treated as a criminal or possible criminal. Maybe our security people, ranging from the police and moving upwards, should be emulating the nature of security that is employed in the developed parts of the world. The smiles and the politeness never cease in the demeanour of policemen and intelligence people in the West even as they go deftly into questioning or examining an individual. In other words, the goal is never one of demeaning an individual.
   Perhaps we could think of such a change in outlook?

The number of bhadraloks in our national rajniti has been going down day by day. You must have been noticing this growing shomoshsha all around us. Now, why is all that happening? That is a good question, but again, such questions have been coming at us over the many joogs we have been going through. There are some good bektis who just might try to give you an uttor or a byakkha. They might tell you that politicians are a dwindling band, a group of people who will soon be referred to as praag-oitihashik. How is that going to be? Now, if you look around, if you do some unki-jhuki into the Jatiyo Sangsad, you will see that more than seventy per cent of the MPs there are byaboshais. They are traders and businessmen. The fact that they are also nirbachito lawmakers, say these good people, makes no difference. A businessman is always a businessman. He will never be a politician. As for those that remain, many are oboshorprapto amlas and shamorik bahini officers. Only twelve per cent of the existing strength of parliament comprises politicians. And that is why this question of bhadraloks in politics comes up, say these people with a birochitopurno gleam in their eyes.
   Now, that is quite all right, you tell yourself. But if you go beyond the JS, what do you see? All the rajnitibids we know are engaged in gala-gaali all the time. If they are not doing that, they are busily engaged in doing some other odbhoot things. Last week, a very hoarse Mannan Bhuiyan told the jonota at one of those ‘birat oitihashik jonoshobhas’ that if the birodhis did not desist from whatever it is they were doing, they will not get more than chollish seats at the next election. Someone else then pointed out that in fact the birodhi dol would not get more than twenty seats. That was carrying things a little too far. But it is politics, you see, and a lot of people get away with saying and doing things of the most amusing as well as irritating kind. Remember last year? Abdul Jalil went around telling the desho-baashi for about two months that the shorkar would go through a poton process on tirishe April. Judging by the way he said it, everyone took him seriously and the whole country began wondering about the April date the senior Awami League figure had given. It was an obaak-kora bepar, for it is rare in the itihash of the prithibi that a birodhi dol fixes the time and date for the fall of a government it does not like. It is almost like some of those astrologers saying that on such and such a date, roz qayamat will be upon us. The deeply religious ones, because often they are also the frightened ones, start praying to the Almighty for succour. In the end, nothing happens. Life goes on, our jibon jatra is normal. The world is still in place and the astrologers have fallen nirob. So tirishe April came, and went, last year. Our shorkar is still where it has been since the last nirbachon. And the birodhis approach one more April, but this time without giving any date for the fall of the government.
   Notice also the kroddhannito language, or bhasha, our politicians use against one another. If someone calls another a razakar, the razakar hits back and accuses the original accuser of being a rashtrodrohi. Then there are all the epithets they happily throw at one another. If one is a Bharatiyo dalal, another is a Pakistani agent. Imagine any politician in the poshschima world doing that. There would be a series of litigation all over the place. It is a very sorry state of affairs. We simply do not know if it will ever come to an end. Maybe it will, but by that we will all be in a chiro-shayito obostha somewhere in this birat jogot.
   SAARC shaj-shojja
   Many people have been coming and complaining about the waste of jatiyo shompod. Even though the SAARC shommelon has been rendered sthogito, the lights meant to keep up our spirits in the course of the summit have remained. Anyone moving towards Mohammadpur or Mirpur from near Sonargaon Pan Pacific will be happy to see such glitter, such alok-shojja. It is quite possible that someone new in the shohor might think that an affluent marriage is going on. That, by the way, is a koutuk, a joke. Don’t take it seriously.
   But, seriously speaking, if the summit has been postponed, the kortripokkho should have kept everything in abeyance. It is not that SAARC will not meet in Dhaka. It will, at some stage. So we will need all that baati again. It is also necessary that the portraits of the netas and netris on display should also be brought down and preserved until the shommelon actually begins. All said and done, however, we are still wondering why our Indian friends decided at the shesh muhurto not to come to Dhaka. They have given us a reason, which is basically about the nirapotta situation here. But the fact is that a number of their kormo-kortas had already arrived and were busy discussing things with other SAARC officials in town. If they had to take the decision of not coming to Dhaka, they should have done it earlier. Or they could have told our shorkar, once the summit was postponed because of the tsunami, that they would talk about a date after February. Now do you see what has happened? All our plans have gone dhulish-shaat. There are sad faces in the pororashtro montronaloy. There are also the dark whispers about the Indians not really trusting us with their security. It is, as you can imagine, a rather opomaan jonok obostha. But we think we will get out of it.
   The bigger proshno is whether SAARC will ever become the kind of body that can really change the fate of the people of South Asia. For the last kurhi bochhor, the organisation has been moving from post to pillar and from pillar to post doing nothing much of importance. No one can raise any dipokkhio problems in the organisation. That conveys a sense of artificiality about SAARC. What is the point in the leaders and officials putting on smiling faces, almost in the nature of the bhetki maachh, when the actual problems are being swept under the rug? The time has arrived for SAARC to take an obosthan that will matter. It is time for its leaders to stop making meaningless boktritas and enjoying cultural programmes. They should get down to business. Serious business.
   We, oporadhis?
   These are some rather strange times. You cannot even go to the Ekushey boi mela without being searched at the gate by all those nirapotta bahini people. The security worries of the shorkar are understandable, but even then the way men and women are being searched before they can go into the book fair area is quite biroktikor. Your mobile phone has to be shut off and you must convince the RAB people there that you are not in any way a humki to the rashtro.
   The basic problem with our rajniti, as we all know, is that the criminals who cause all our troubles are never caught. But because of their criminality it is the rest of us who have to go through all this koshto and opomaan. It seems we are the oporadhis, not the criminals themselves. What has happened to our mullobodh? Well, they have gone down and they will go down even more. We say that because we do not have any great politician, purush or nari, who can inspire all of us and inspire us. Our bortoman politicians are like the rest of us — ordinary, shadharon and without much of gyaan-buddhi. That is why we have been suffering for such a long time.
   Bhadralok can be reaced at editorial@newagebd.com

The opposition Awami League (AL) party and its allies have again announced anti-government street agitation and a non-stop 36-hour hartal (general shutdown) from February 14 to ‘protest against political violence and unabated price hike of essential commodities’ and to bring down the BNP-led alliance government of Khaleda Zia. It will be the seventh such hartal by the AL-led opposition parties since Mr. Kibria MP and four others were killed in a brutal grenade attack on January 27.
   The government, on its part, is mobilising its supporters to counter the AL moves. With both sides taking ‘hard lines’ to deal with the other, the country seems to be heading towards another round of political unrest and instability.
   Bangladesh adopted a ‘British-style’ parliamentary system of governance in 1972, immediately after its independence. Both the government and the opposition political parties are said to believe in ‘democracy’, but, unfortunately, we do not witness any seriousness or consistency in their public pronouncements and policy actions. Principles of democracy were often ignored in the past when this served a particular agenda. This trend continues even today.
   In 1970s and 1980s, we saw how ‘authoritarian’ attitude of the ‘top’ leaders of the political establishment had plunged the country into despair and military coups and bloodshed. It was hoped that with restoration of a democratic order in 1991, political leaders would learn their lesson and refrain from mutual bickering and animosity that had earlier, in 1975 and 1981, encouraged extra-constitutional methods for change of government.
   But looking at the present situation, we are not sure that they have learnt any lesson from the past. This is apparent from the fact that certain quarters within the opposition camp, including the AL president Sheikh Hasina and general secretary Abdul Jalil, are waging a campaign of attrition to make the government totally ineffective and unworkable. Their old demand for the resignation of the government on the allegation that it is ‘illegitimate’, ‘corrupt’, ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘terrorist’ has reached a higher frequency in recent weeks. Abdul Jalil is reported to have agreed even with the monstrous suggestion put forward by some of Bangladesh’s deadliest enemies across the border that India should intervene directly to ‘remove the present government’ and ‘restore the spirit of the liberation war’. Meanwhile, the government ministers are sitting on their chairs, as has been the practice for many years, and blaming only the opposition parties for all ills in the country.
   In a democracy that is about 13 years old, one does not expect that everything would go smoothly to the satisfaction of all parties, but the minimum condition for a functioning democracy is that the parliament is ‘active’ and all national issues are discussed, debated and solved in the parliament. Unfortunately, most members of parliament (MP) care very little about their attendance and participation in the parliament. Opposition parties announce ‘boycott of the parliament’ on flimsiest of grounds, but enjoy all the privileges including the import of duty-free luxury cars, non-payment of telephone charges and foreign trips at government expenses!
   Most government MPs are busy in meetings and business dealings, while their opposition counterparts remain absent on the excuse that they are ‘not allowed to speak’ in the parliament. Inside the parliament, they spend most time in ‘praising’ their own leaders and attacking the ‘other’ side, sometimes using even ‘un-parliamentary’ language. There is hardly any patience and tolerance required for a meaningful debate and objective approach to solve the country’s most pressing problems. We have been observing this sorry state of affairs during the whole period from 1992 to the present time. And this has retarded the growth and strengthening of parliamentary democracy as practised in the Britain and other western countries.
   I do not wish to say that the present government is ‘fully democratic’ and that it is beyond any criticism. Many of the policies adopted by this government, like its processor AL government, are directed at protecting and enhancing the business and political interests of a very small local ‘elite’ group and several foreign beneficiaries. National development budgets and fiscal policies are formulated to attract ‘aid and investment’ from foreign governments and companies, in a way that is acceptable the World Bank and similar organisations. Interests of national industries and local agriculture are ignored in the name of ‘free trade’ but actually to open the market for goods from more powerful countries including India.
   This government, like its predecessors again, remains bogged down in its own contradictions, fails to control widespread corruption and theft of state assets and public money, fails to protect the lives and properties of citizens at home and abroad, remains subservient to foreign interests, fails not see the potential danger of internal discord and foreign intervention, and above all, fails to provide an honest, competent and inspiring leadership. For all these and many other reasons, the government should be criticised and taken to task.
   But this does not mean that a legitimate government elected by an overwhelming majority of the people should be removed or ousted by street agitations, general strikes and violent confrontations. The AL’s current tactics of ‘enforcing’ hartal by creating panic, erecting road blocks, shutting down shops and business houses by threat, throwing petrol bombs at buses, cars and rickshaws, destroying railway lines, closing down educational institutions, etc., have nothing to do with ‘democracy’. These tactics do more harm to the county’s economy and interests of the general public than advancing any constructive political cause. This also helps destabilisation of the whole social order.
   The hartal tactics of the AL are clearly wrong and cannot be supported on any excuse. It should be noted that the party may disrupt public life, education, business, transport and other activities in the capital and other urban centres for few days, every now and then, but it still does not have the popular support or muscle power to defeat the BNP-led alliance forces on the street. Despite many reservations, the people are not yet ready to abandon the BNP-led government and rally behind the AL’s destructive ‘hartal’ campaign.
   The credibility of the AL leadership in defeating ‘terrorism’ and curbing ‘corruption’ needs regeneration in the public eye, a crucial point for Sheikh Hasina and Abdul Jalil to remember. People have not yet forgotten the atrocities committed by Joynal Hazari, Shamim Osman, Abu Taher and other ‘terrorist godfathers’ during the last AL government. Also, the curse of corruption, commission hunting and grabbing of government properties was no less widespread than during the present regime. The party, therefore, should not be provoked by the extremist elements within its rank and set itself on a ‘self-destruct’ mode by going into a street showdown with the BNP-led government. It would be better for it to wait until the next general elections in the summer of 2006, when it would get a chance to defeat the government by democratic means. Any other way to power would not be successful.
   To convince the electorate that the AL would be a better choice to form the next government, it must refrain from shouting empty slogans and engage in constructive politics. It must put forward ‘concrete’ and ‘credible’ programs to handle various problems facing the country. It must also address some or all issues that brought public distrust and anger during its previous term, during 1996-2001. The hard fact is: clarifications on many points are needed before the public may decide whether or not to vote for Sheikh Hasina’s AL in the next general elections.
   Abdul Malik, an academic, writes from Cardiff, UK