Awami League must be congratulated!

Is it a significant event in our national life? Is there any reason for relief from the precarious and pessimistic political environment prevailing in the country? Opinions appear very diverse.

Some observers would attach little importance to this event, because they think that the JS makes little contribution to our national life, irrespective of whether the opposition is present or not. Bills passed in the JS can hardly be termed as 'considered view' of the people's representatives. For, the BNP-led alliance leadership decides all policies and laws to be executed, and get them rubber-stamped by the parliament. Then there are questions about the intellectual abilities of some members of JS to debate complicated economic and international issues placed in the JS. Debating these issues requires profound wisdom. This requirement may not be fulfilled in a democracy, because it assumes that anyone elected to parliament possesses this wisdom. Thus, these critics seem correct in holding the view that the opposition's presence in the JS meets merely a constitutional formality, not a national priority.

They also believe that AL's U-turn is not aimed at making the JS effective. Its purpose is to make the JS chaotic, which our public media find very lively.

AL is a master of U-turn making. One good example is the elections held by General Ershad. After publicly declaring that anyone participating in the elections will be termed as 'national betrayer' (Jatiya Baiman), AL participated in Ershad's elections in the name of 'national interests'. So, reasons are there to believe that AL has serious lack of consistency in its partisan strategies and agendas. And AL has made it clear that its main purpose to join the JS sessions is to strengthen its government-fall activism, not to make the JS effective.

Others interpret this AL move as a matter of partisan politics. Politics is a power game. Both AL and BNP are engaged in this game. Here universal suffrage is just a legal framework to play this game, because our politicians are not members of military. In other words, principles of democracy and public interests have little meanings in this critical game played in our country. Therefore, the party that fails to form the government boycotts JS and begins partisan politics that causes untold sufferings to ordinary people. Since their actions have little to do with exercising democratic rights, these sufferings do not bother them.

All these are very true. And our conclusion -- formation of government and the opposition's participation in the JS sessions are of little consequence -- would be very convincing if we do not examine why our political parties behave in this way.

The meaning of the phrase "politics is a power game" is that those who play this game have only one objective -- to capture and remain in power. How rightly they will obey the rules of this game depends entirely upon how strong and strict the umpire is. In all democratic countries, this umpire is the so-called civil society, since the ordinary people have neither means nor minds to get involved in this voluntary, but critically important, activity.

Perhaps it is well known that our civil society is directly involved in the creation of prevailing chaotic political situation in the country. For example, our politicians cannot be held alone responsible for creating unacceptable academic conditions in our public universities, because the entire university administration lies in the hands of our teachers. In other words, although the government must be held both responsible and accountable for the miserable situation in our public universities, it must be understood that the leaders of our teaching community are actively involved in the mess. The same is true in government bureaucracy.

So, the strategies that AL and BNP follow during each other's position periods are entirely consistent with the wishes and expectations of the leaders of our civil society. And they have genuine interests in the change of government, as they will be appropriately rewarded for their faithful services.

AL's commitment to come back to the JS must be examined from this perspective. Our entire civil society is corrupted. In this situation, the current system of caretaker government for holding general election is the only hope to changing the administration peacefully; let alone the lofty goal of institutionalising democracy in the country. And this system will work only if our political parties respect at two minimum requirements of democracy: (i) accepting the voters' choice and (ii) leaving the duty of judging government performance to the rightful authority, the voters.

AL has finally shown the political courage and wisdom to meet the first requirement. It remains to be seen if it will meet the second requirement of democracy. This is difficult to predict, because it has developed the political habit of playing the role of jury, judge, and executioner.

However, it must be admitted that AL has created a glimmer of hope that the next general election will be meaningful. If the losing party boycotts JS, which has been done for the last three consecutive parliaments, there is no point, whatsoever, to holding general elections in the country.

Not only government, but also the whole nation should congratulate AL for making such a wise and democratic decision.

In democracy, parliament is the battleground for fighting for political power. Let our elected politicians fight in this sacred political battleground. For they are the only people chosen to fight there. The access to this sacred battleground is strictly restricted. And the nation hopes and wants them to use this sovereign facility wisely and effectively.

Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi is part-time faculty, Department of Economics and Social Science, BRAC University.