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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

THE latest discovery of a huge weapons and explosives cache belonging to the banned Islamist group Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh is further proof that Islamist radicals in the country are reorganising themselves in the lull that has followed the conviction and execution of their top leaders in 2007. As reported in New Age on Monday, the security forces seized about 150 grenade casings along with huge quantities of bomb-making materials from a JMB operative Saturday night, which led them on to large quantities of books and compacts discs meant to instruct operatives in their so-called ‘holy war’. As this paper has warned time and again, Islamist radicalism is not restricted to any one group in the country, it is a political movement, and the strategy to tackle this problem cannot be hinged on the arrest of one or more of its leaders, nor the banning of a group. As such, the suggestion from the previous elected government that the hangings of the top seven JMB leaders after trial had dealt a deathblow to the movement was wishful thinking at best.
   Furthermore, successive governments have, until now, failed to unearth the sources of finance and weapons that these militant groups have access to, and have instead kept the media focus on individuals rather than organisations, in order to have a steady flow of cheap popularity for nabbing ‘kingpins’. Side by side with law and order measures to tackle the problem of Islamist radicalisation in the country, we, therefore, need strong political and social actions in contesting the ideological indoctrination of the youth that this movement uses as cannon fodder.
   In the unipolar world that as emerged out of the end of the Cold War, the sufferings inflicted by the military and economic aggressions of the west have created legions of young men and women who are looking for a new language of resistance. Part of the appeal of the radical Islamist doctrine now in circulation is that it provides this language of resistance, using obscurantist religious dogma to advocate and justify bombings, killings and other medieval cruelties. Tragically, this obscurantism is gaining potency in many countries of the world because mainstream political and power establishments in these countries are remaining unquestioningly loyal to governments of the west, often at a terrible human cost to their own societies. When a political establishment ignores the social, political and economic aspirations of its own people, its own source of power, the failure that results is evident from the growing popularity of the Islamist radicals across much of the third world.
   In Bangladesh, as in many other parts of the world, economic disparities between a privileged minority and the masses are also rising, with the latter seeing their opportunities to attain a minimum standard of living shrinking, because of a faltering education system, and of course because the economics of globalisation has so far been that of exploitation. Unless the political and social mainstream learn to identify these rifts emerging in their societies, and learn to address them with affirmative actions, with economic justice and with democratic political orientation, law and order measures to contain militancy are destined to fail in the long run.

Yet more reasons to part
ways with World Bank

AS LEADERS of about two dozen powerful economies met in Washington DC to discuss how to overcome the current financial crisis and resolved, among other things, that the Bretton Woods institutions would have to be reformed significantly in order to enhance their capacity to assist countries, the World Bank’s senior manager, during his keynote presentation at a regional conference on food crisis on Saturday, reiterated the lending agency’s stance regarding subsidies. He recommended that Bangladesh should eliminate subsidies and channel the money to other sectors that would aid in boosting agricultural productivity such as inputs.
   AB Mirza Azizul Islam, the finance adviser to the military-controlled interim government, however, turned down the suggestion saying elimination of subsidies was out of the question before land reforms. He stressed the need for continuation of subsidies to farmers while other speakers pointed out that the farm subsidies were essential to transfer income to the poorer sections of the people. It should be pointed out that the developed countries in the world continue to subsidise their agricultural sector, paying about a billion dollars every day, and are, in fact, constantly looking for means to maintain similar levels, if not increase those subsidies, while multilateral lending agencies such as the World Bank continue to impose upon their clients the ‘need’ to eliminate market distortions such as subsidies. On the other hand, the prevailing subsidies that subsequent governments have perpetuated end up, largely, in the pockets of importers and fertiliser manufacturers. The farmers hardly get the full benefit of such subsidies.
   There is a strong need to subsidise agriculture. It should be done through such a mechanism that ensures direct delivery to the small and marginal farmers who need it most. The regional conference was only one instance out of numerous others that illustrates the conflict of interest between that of the World Bank and the government. Its suggestion to increase spending on inputs, which would invariably include seeds and technology, would only mean higher expenditure on goods and services that multinational corporations would provide.
   In such circumstances it is heartening that the World Bank would find it difficult to continue providing funds to Bangladesh due to a lack of proposals beyond 2009. Such omission, probably more out of default than design, would only help the country regain its policy space which is being gradually constricted due to the policy prescriptions of the lending agencies that they tag as conditionalities with their loans and grants. We strongly believe the political and bureaucratic establishment should strive to do away with their mindset of not being able to survive without the alms of the lenders. Such omission, if it actually results in less involvement of international financial institutions, could only bode well for the nation, especially the poorest sections.

ON February 24 of this year, the chief election commissioner had a moment of Zen-like clarity. Asked by reporters whether parliamentary elections should be held under a state of emergency, he gave his answer in no uncertain terms. ‘I do not understand how the elections can be held under a state of emergency,’ ATM Shamsul Huda had said, ‘because the necessary scope for electioneering should be facilitated. Emergency means, from what I understand from my experience as a magistrate, that ten people cannot hold an assembly. Emergency is more serious than the imposition of Section 144. So emergency should be lifted. If it is not lifted, then how do you campaign? How do you address the voters, through the television? That is why we ask for the creation of an environment that will enable the people to move about freely and go for electioneering.’ That was in February. Evidently, he has since changed his mind.
   The decision to hold elections to the ninth parliament under a state of emergency has been, from the very beginning, the design of this military-controlled interim government. The regime has been so dependent on the emergency for its survival, given that it is and has always been a constitutional impostor, that it cannot, even for a few days, imagine life without the protective shield that the emergency provides it. To begin with, emergency was used to get rid of the Iajuddin-led caretaker government and to put the Fakhruddin-led interim regime in power. Then, when the ruling coterie decided that it wanted to hold on to power for about two years at least, the emergency provided the basis for its extended rule as the constitution was put through the shredder. Emergency, and the consequent suspension of the constitutionally-granted fundamental rights of the people, is what this regime has thrived on for the last 22 months. Is it any wonder, therefore, that at this critical juncture, those in power are so reluctant to part with the ‘basis’ of their power?
   In order to justify the prolongation of emergency rule, the regime has been offering, for the last several months, one flimsy grounds after another. First, we were told that emergency is needed for the maintenance of law and order — invoking the oldest and most unoriginal trick in an authoritarian regime’s book. The only problem with it is, it is difficult to say whether the reasoning is more flawed or the argument more obtuse. The maintenance of law and order is a regular and ordinary responsibility of a government, to be carried out through the use of the law enforcement agencies at the state’s disposal and under the framework of the ordinary laws of the land. If a state of emergency is required to maintain law and order and if law and order deteriorates every time emergency is withdrawn, then our country would have to be under a perpetual state of emergency. What the regime is saying is: the only way to maintain law and order is by taking away the people’s fundamental rights and by making them live under a pervasive sense of fear. By that line of argument, law and order would be best ensured by putting the country under a perpetual curfew and by making people prisoners in their own homes. The idea is absurd. If a government cannot maintain law and order under normal circumstances, it should do the people a favour and resign, not punish the people by confiscating their rights. That is a cop out.
   Then, the regime told us that the recent city corporation and municipality polls, which were held under the state of emergency, had proved that free and fair elections are possible under emergency. It proved no such thing of course, but even we take that argument to be correct, that in itself is no reason to keep the emergency in place. Proper, participatory and relatively peaceful elections have been held thrice since 1991 without the need for an emergency, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that peaceful elections cannot be held without emergency this time around. Instead, as the chief election commissioner pointed out in February, emergency, by its very nature, impedes the electoral process. It is essentially restrictive. Proper elections, on the other hand, require an atmosphere in which people are able to gather without restriction, discuss and debate freely, and to exercise their adult franchise after a process of deliberation. The responsibility of the government and the Election Commission is to facilitate that process, not to impede it in any way.
   Now, the government is trying a new line of reasoning. On Saturday, the commerce adviser suggested that the state of emergency may be withdrawn in full prior to the elections, but only if the ‘election atmosphere develops smoothly’. We cannot tell for sure whether the adviser had read the constitution of our country before this regime shredded it into pieces, but he should know that the constitution does state, in express terms, the conditions which may necessitate the declaration of a state of emergency. Thankfully, the smooth development of the election atmosphere is not one of those conditions, and hence, justifies neither the declaration nor the perpetuation of emergency. Moreover, to say that emergency may be lifted if the ‘election atmosphere develops smoothly’ is to say nothing. What does he mean by that? How smoothly does it have to develop? And who gets to decide whether the atmosphere has developed smoothly enough? Will it be the commerce adviser, or will the decision be made by someone above his pay-grade?
   This regime has taken the same approach to justifying emergency that the Bush administration took to justify its invasion of Iraq. With Bush, first it was weapons of mass destruction. When he couldn’t find any, he said he was spreading democracy. Then, when democracy didn’t work out, Bush tried to justify invading Iraq by linking it to the war on terror, even though Iraq only became a terrorist haven after the US invasion and as a direct result of it. Our current rulers have the same penchant for changing the story-line to suit their needs, even though none of the stories make any sense.
   Proper elections will only take place if the electorate is energised and there is spontaneous participation of the people in the political as well as electoral processes. For that to happen, the emergency needs to go. The problem is, that the Election Commission lacks the spine to call the government’s bluff. Having so forcefully argued for the withdrawal of emergency in February, the chief election commissioner is now only too happy to go along with this regime’s electoral design. But there is hope. The Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party have both made the withdrawal of emergency one of their principal demands, both making it clear that they will not participate in parliamentary elections under a state of emergency. Ultimately, the regime may be forced to back-down, in which case we may yet have participatory and credible elections within a reasonable timeframe.