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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

WHEN some eight crore people queue up in front of the polling centres across the country today, they will do more than just exercise their rights to adult franchise; they will celebrate the impending end of almost two years of rule by an apolitical, unelected, undemocratic, unlawful and unconstitutional government. They will also celebrate the restoration of their rights, the right to decide who they want to be governed by, the right the military-controlled interim government had kept suspended under a crippling state of emergency. The election day, thus, will be a moment of truth, a moment to renew our resolve to not digress and bemoan the lost years once again. These past two years have had an adverse impact on the nation – politically, economically, socially and culturally. These past two years have constituted a sad saga of deprivation – political, economic, social and cultural.
   There have been some bright patches, too. As we see it, the two years of apolitical, unelected, undemocratic, unlawful and unconstitutional governance have presented valuable lessons for two key institutions — the army and the political parties. The army, we hope, has become aware of its limit and limitation – neither is it capable of seizing and sustaining state power, nor are there many takers, nationally or internationally, of the justification, whatever it may be, for such takeovers. The latest foray of the army into the cauldron of power, albeit indirect, should make it realise that it can no longer redraw the political landscape at will, or mark and force into political exile leaders who have developed an organic relationship with the people. The political parties have, on the other hand, realised, again hopefully, that their excesses, while in power or in opposition, will eventually catch up with them, and that they should not be blinded by the power so as to believe there will be no adjudication of, or retribution for, their transgressions.
   Whether or not the awakening of the army or the reawakening of the politicians would be the beginning of a new beginning would ultimately depend on their sincerest efforts to retain in the coming days the lessons learnt. It would, however, be foolhardy to expect that they would do so willingly. The people in general, and the politically conscious sections of society and the democratically oriented media in particular, have to keep the pressure on both the politicians and the army so that they don’t digress from the path these elections hopefully will open up for the nation.
   It would be equally foolhardy to expect these elections will change the quality of politics and governance overnight. Yet, the experience of the past two years has apparently made the politicians humbler than before, if their behaviour on the campaign trail over the past few days were any indicator. We hope that the politicians retain the eagerness to listen to the people when one or the other political camp goes to power after the elections.
   At this point in time, however, what is most crucial is to make sure that the election day is not marred by any interference, overt or covert, by any quarters, political or apolitical. The primary responsibility to make these long-awaited and much-expected elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad credible rests primarily on the Election Commission, the army and the government of Fakhruddin Ahmed. The people in general and the politicians in particular also have a role to play. They need to behave responsibly and also be vigilant so that no one can disrupt or distort the electoral process.

Israeli atrocities must end

The second day of Israeli airstrikes on civilian targets in the Gaza strip on Sunday looks likely to push the death toll well beyond the 280 now dead, with the Israeli government carrying on its bloodiest military campaign against Palestinian civilians since 1967. As the focus of the international media turns to Gaza and the heart-rending images of bleeding and dead Palestinian civilians bring home the ‘collateral damage’ of the attack, Israel and the US have maintained their position that the attacks are targeting Hamas ‘terrorists’ responsible for rocket-fire into Israeli border towns. What Israel is inflicting on Gaza is, in reality, called ‘collective punishment’ for millions of Palestinians for the actions of hardliners within that society.
   Over the past year and a half, an Israeli economic blockade of Gaza has crippled public life — denying its residents access to necessities as basic as medical care and fuel — subjecting those allowed through the check-posts to the most degrading humiliation. This, and the ongoing military invasion, have presumably been done to topple the Hamas government which, the US and Israel say, cannot legitimately govern the Palestinian territories because of their ‘terrorist’ credo in Israel’s perception. It is ironical that the Hamas that the Israeli government once helped to nurture to counter the influence of Yasser Arafat and the PLO have now become the gravest security threat on Israel’s borders. What is beyond doubt is that the latest military campaign and the brutal economic blockade of the past year will only serve as a recruitment campaign for the hard-line sections within Palestinian society.
   If Israel hopes its latest tyranny will make its borders more secure, far from it, the brutality will once again polarise Palestinian society in favour of vengeance and suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. And by destroying public institutions such as the police, and by undermining the credibility of Palestinian elections, Israel is only adding to the control that Hamas wields in the Palestinian territories. It is unlikely that Israel launched its ongoing offensive without the tacit approval of the US and the EU, and the fact that these superpowers have time after time prevented a UN security council resolution that demands an end to Israeli atrocities on Palestine is a testimony to the depraved and immoral regimes that govern those countries.

ANYBODY afraid of Virginia Woolf? Probably not, she is dead; her books could still scare control freaks though. It seems pretty much everybody is afraid of Bangladesh or Bangladeshis. I can see the reader frowning but I am sure s/he will agree with me a little later. No matter how oppressed we feel, how persistently we are hounded, how blatantly we are subjected to deprivation (with the help of our parasitic elites) and how childishly our politics and economy are disturbed, we are said to be the reason of fear. We arouse fear in others who would love to see us ape them and become their carbon copies (we can never be their equal but be only copies, subordinate, dependent copies, so they can shape and reshape us like the creator). Alas, copies are not real! We arouse fear on so many counts that most Bangladeshis must be feeling that they are a curse (?) on the globe. It is not just outsiders but also some forces inside Bangladesh with strong linkages with outsiders who are afraid of us.
   But the truth is it is the dominant who suffer from or create such a fear syndrome. The whites portray the blacks as muggers, drug addicts, even murderers, and then fear them. The capitalist media creates fear about the workers who thoughtlessly (?) go on strike and create mayhem in the streets; the upper caste fears the lower caste seeing it as dirty, ugly, and always scheming to break out of control. Whole religions can be branded oppressive and their followers feared as terrorists or potential terrorists. There is fear created around the figure of the ‘criminal’ and ‘woman’. Such fear is part of the strategy of constructing the dominated, the marginal, or the oppressed as the ‘other’. It demonises them and legitimises (and invites) strict control or repressive domination over them. Ethno-linguistic minorities are subjected to such dehumanisation, of course. Many references can be given on the issue but I will just provide two: The Birth of Whiteness: Race and the Emergence of U.S. Cinema; edited by Daniel Bernardi; Rutgers University Press, 1996; Ella Shohat and Robert Stam, Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media; Routledge, 1994.
   
   The west and India, the copycat
   LATELY everyone seems afraid of the probability that a fair enough election might be held. What if a fair enough election is held after all and the party you do not like comes to power? In other words, what if the Bangladeshis vote for a party you do not like? I have heard Bangladeshi analysts and observers express concerns that election result engineering will take place in addition to some electoral frauds.
   The west is afraid that the Bangladeshis might vote to power the party that may not be as responsive to their demands as they would like. Demands meaning hunting terrorists, nurturing secularism, and further opening up the economy (as if the economy could be opened up any further), weakening the state in Bangladesh (the state hardly got a chance to form, really) by allowing foreign penetration of state institutions – financial, organisational, ideological and otherwise. These demands ensue from the old paradigm that produced the failed policies against so-called Islamic terror, the devastating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the horrific economic crisis worldwide. Ask any average citizen of this country – a rickshaw-wallah or a vendor – he would advise the west to take a deep breath and a moment to ponder; the westerners played games with the world and since they were the hegemon and messed up seriously with the globe they need to control their interfering minds and hands.
   It is not just the west that is afraid of us but India as well. India is afraid that Bangladesh is fast becoming a breeding ground of terrorists without the Bangladeshis having any inkling of it! It is afraid that the Bangladesh economy might try to be autonomous (and who knows what will happen if the economy does develop and gains autonomy?) unless it is swamped by Indian goods. So beggar thy poor neighbour. We Bangladeshis seem to have a crooked collective mind as well. That’s why we would love to destabilise (?) India by protecting its separatist elements. Talk about blaming others for one’s own policy failures!
   Average Indians do not get to watch our TV programmes; I wonder if there is a fear that they might like and admire Bangladeshi programmes. Some young people have told me that the Indian youth love Bangladeshi band music and they don’t let visiting Bangladeshi bands get off the stage. The average Indian citizen really would not have any problem admiring Bangladesh. The problem lies with the policymakers, the bureaucratic implementers, media high-ups, meaning the Indian elites. There are other fears of course. One of them being Bangladeshis playing havoc with the Indian economy just by a few of them walking across the border into India!
   What do all these fears do? They create the penchant to intervene in Bangladesh politics and economics just like a traditional imperial power. I know some of my theoretical purist readers would be annoyed and say ‘Come on! The Indians are non-western, non-white people. How can they behave like the white Europeans?’ I don’t want to answer the question directly. This is a pity of course. India is a non-western and non-white power now. It was a colony before. India has grown in power and economic ability but has remained an obedient student of the old European (American) world – the knowledge that world produced, the findings it spread, the paradigms it used. About a year back, I asked my former teacher, a famous American sinologist, if Chinese scholars were thinking about alternative paradigms for international relations. He mentioned that he was involved in preparation for a major seminar and found ideas about alternative theoretical frameworks from potential Chinese participants. I am sure serious Indian scholars have done work on ‘different’ ways of seeing inter-state relations that would promote peace, cooperation, and reduce conflict not only in our region but beyond it as well.
   It might sound like repeating a cliché but there has indeed been a lot of progress in science and technology and globalisation has created linkages that have brought countries closer. Consequently, it seems, we all now live in glasshouses that are fragile and vulnerable. Mutual respect and admiration may take us a long way rather than wielding a big stick (that is used against the black or the brown ‘other’). Too much faithful learning from our former (and current, in my opinion) colonial masters simply cannot be good for our socio-econo-political health. India being a non-western emerging power has to reckon with this and try to offer some fresh thinking rather than following word for word the old world’s thinking on international relations forcing its neighbours to wish they lived on a different planet. Some unlearning needs to take place, indeed.
   Bangladeshis do not have any problems admiring India for its economic progress and they are genuinely hurt to see Indians attacked and dying. That is only normal. Bangladeshis also do not like India to ignore our legitimate, elected leaders and gang up with western powers to intervene in Bangladesh politics and economics with the aim to control this country and choke off its democratic aspirations. Bangladeshis are a wonderful people: talented, resilient, tolerant, and brave. We have our indigenous secular trends. Those who know Bangladeshis well would have a hard time believing that this country could suddenly slip into the grasp of religious fundamentalists. So much money has been scattered to create a discourse suggesting religious fundamentalism is spreading in Bangladesh that one needs real courage just to point out that it is practically/politically impossible because of what I call ‘the identity construction’ efforts of our two major political parties, the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party with solid blocks of followers, let alone the flexible nature of Islam in Bangladesh.
   
   The army, bureaucracy and halo around them
   Fear is being instilled in the army and the bureaucracy about their own country. It is difficult enough to establish civilian/political supremacy over these two institutions even under ideal circumstances (ask any scholar from developed or developing countries). The British should know well; they produced the famous sitcom ‘Yes, Minister’. It is even more difficult when foreign forces directly access these institutions and woo them to see Bangladeshis as violent, rowdy, unpredictable, and in need of strict control.
   The state in this post-colonial society is in a formative phase. The past two years, an alliance of the army, bureaucracy, civil society elements, and foreign forces governed Bangladesh using a suffocating, autocratic emergency rule. I am not a ‘decolonisation believer’ and I do not believe that the Third World countries were decolonised, the sacrifices of our nationalists notwithstanding. The term post-colonial society is more for facilitating communication; the developing countries are still colonised and often such bureaucratic-military alliances are invoked to take over power and discipline the people who are about to cross limits like unruly children (?). It is very difficult for weak Third World states – functioning, as they do, in an extremely harsh and militarised world order which encourages strict domination and control over non-western territories and non-Western people – to maintain civilian control over the bureaucracy and military. The west, the US to be more specific, has used such bureaucratic-military alliances to suppress and repress Third World people on a regular basis. More often than not ravenous trans-national capital has been a part of this alliance. The post-January 2007 Bangladesh shows the parasitic civil society has become an eager partner. Historically, the army interventions have always had civilian involvement. Some civilian quarters – conservative politicians/capitalists fearing labour power, for instance – invited the army, almost always with US backing.
   It is extremely important, for a country like Bangladesh, to safeguard the integrity of state institutions like the bureaucracy and the military and have civilian control over them. The political parties must form a rock solid consensus on this issue. This is needed for our own good as well as for the good of these institutions. We do not have the luxury of being European countries which can get economic help from the US and which did not have to worry about their defence. I know, reader, Europe felt controlled by the US during the cold war and the US did intervene in the internal politics of European countries – in West Germany, for instance, in the early 1960s, to isolate Chancellor Konrad Adenauer after the treaty between West Germany and France was signed in January 1963. Still, we do not call European countries developing or underdeveloped countries, do we? Our journey to development is different in nature and far more difficult, to be honest.
   The degree of elitism surrounding our bureaucracy and army is nothing less than unhealthy. I call it the halo surrounding these institutions which alienates them from the people of this country whom they are supposed to serve and protect. The halo has to be dismantled. These institutions need to reckon with the fact that their higher education and training do not locate them on a pedestal from which they can look down upon the average citizen and expect reverence. Just like any other institution of this country they belong to Bangladeshis and must learn to identify with the trials and tribulations of the common people. A soldier or an army officer has no reason to think that he has somehow acquired a special status. Isn’t each and every citizen expected to make the supreme sacrifice when his/her country is in danger? The average Bangladeshi is fighting, struggling each and every moment of her/his life for freedom, livelihood, and cultural independence and this struggle should not be seen as somewhat of a lower quality compared to fighting wars or manning borders. And it should be regarded with the utmost respect.
   We can hear fear expressed of the next parliament. This fear of course is the disguised efforts to control the representatives. This government has approved some one hundred and five ordinances and it wants to talk about the approval of these with the two leaders. Why such haste and why such tyrannical concerns about controlling the parliament? I am sure the parliament, whichever party wins the election, would like to consider the ordinances and then think about approving them through open deliberation. If it thinks most of them would be useful for the country it will pass them. This authoritarian tendency to manipulate the parliament even before the election is held is dangerous, to say the least. It will frustrate the efforts to attain openness in the political system and will strengthen the culture of secrecy. It challenges our efforts to institutionalise the legislative process.
   The election should be fair and acceptable. The parties, election commission, bureaucracy, and military need to do their level best so an acceptable election is held and we can veer away from uncertainty and destructive chaos. Can the media figure out a way of playing a constructive role so any plan or efforts to subvert even part of the election process can be uncovered? The foreign forces have done enough of ‘playing God’ and messing up other people’s political and economic systems; there has to be a stop. This severe world economic crisis should point at their own limitations and remind them that they, like us, are only human. It would be helpful if they could make it understood to different forces that they support a fair election and would respect the results.
   To all concerned: There is no need to be afraid of Bangladesh. How about admiring it?
   Anwara Begum is a professor of political science at Chittagong University