Common Minimum Performance

Some parts of the programme make eminent sense. One can see the hand of one of the best political economists around. For example, it calls for distributing government (khas) land to landless people. At least one youth from every family will get a job through an "employment guarantee scheme." Farmers will receive "fair prices" for their crops. A price regulatory authority will reduce prices of essential items, which have sky-rocketed over the last few years. Food security will be "ensured for all." The 1997 Chittagong Hill Tracts accord to bring lasting peace will be implemented and minorities will be protected. Rickshaws and hawkers will not be evicted from the streets of Dhaka.

It is decidedly populist. It therefore stands 180 degrees opposed to the Aid Consortium. For example, if they want to retain rickshaws, are they going to tell the World Bank to forget about their "Dhaka Urban Transport Project"? In point eight of the Programme, it claims it will re-open closed mills and factories. Does that mean it will re-open Adamjee Jute Mill, then? Hardly likely. There are also the usual promises to get rid of political "godfathers," which we will believe when the 14-party alliance gets rid of theirs first!

However sensible the focus on job creation and survival of the farmers, one can only conclude that, like most manifestos, it will be shelved once (or rather if) they come to power.

They are correct to say that the country is facing one hell of a crisis. Precisely for that reason, we cannot afford theatrics and artificial confrontation. Some strategic decisions need to be made in a country facing what looks like the beginnings of an armed insurrection.

That brings us to the first point of the Programme, which calls for Electoral Reform. No change, no elections. Or rather, the Awami League will boycott the election as they did in February 1996 and we will be left with months of administrative chaos, turmoil, and severe economic damage. If they were serious about charting an alternative course in economic management (which they are not), then they could propagate that message to the people over the next 10 months. They could show their commitment to democracy by joining Parliament, even though the Speaker is patently biased and would have made a first rate apparatchik in the old Soviet Union. As for the question of electoral reform, I have always been suspicious of whether we have ever had a truly free and fair election, except in 1954 and 1970. I am very dubious of pronouncements made by foreign-funded democracy organisations, reform or no reform.

If the people are so fed up with this regime and are prepared to come onto the streets, as the opposition claims, why don't they risk being cheated of a couple of percentage points here and there? With the Jamaat asking for so many seat nominations, it will become a clear fight between the Jamaat-inspired alliance against a secular democratic alliance. Against the backdrop of bombings, spiralling prices, massive corruption, and rural depression, how could the Awami League possibly lose?

Like the BNP, the League is out of touch with the people. Over the last few years, besides calling for regular hartals, they have sat on their hands. Their organising secretaries cannot tell the Leader if they really do have popular support. That makes it so rational (in a twisted way) to create an artificial crisis about elections and caretaker governments. They have one shot in their armoury. That is, to create enough mayhem to tempt the government to make a heavy-handed mistake, like, say, call an emergency.

I do not think it worth having the country subjected to pre-election and post-election instability. This is just a nasty "spat" between two political groups, fighting over who gets their greedy hands over state and donor resources.

A couple of thoughts:

In their wisdom, the 14 parties felt it not worth mentioning the vital contribution of four million overseas Bangladeshis or how they could play a greater role. Even the World Bank brought out a report the same week, showing that migrants send four times as much money back home than all the donors put together. Money does not always talk, then?

Of more political significance, the issue of gas was fudged, behind a very bland statement. They need to make it clear exactly what they intend to do with the gas reserves. Does the Awami League want to export it or not? I am sure one or two multinationals, a superpower, a regional superpower, and quite a few donors would be interested.

Of course, they have been told already, in private. It is just around 147 million other people have not, and might like to know.

Farid Bakht is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.