Confrontational politics

Confrontational politics is a positive hindrance to democratic culture. Yet government appears to be determined to resist opposition parties on the street. Hartal rallies of opposition parties are to be stopped by the anti-hartal rallies of alliance government strongly supported by law enforcing agencies. Necessity for such show of muscle power is questionable. In fact it can be argued that by launching anti-hartal processions the government party is assisting the opposition to draw sympathy of the common people because such repressive measures are publicised as government's attempt to gag people's voice to hide itself from exposition of misdeeds in almost all cases.

Despite full awareness of their limitation the opposition parties are striving hard to force the government either to announce its resignation or early national election because of deteriorating lawlessness, wide spread and blatant corruption in administration, increasing fundamentalists' militancy, declining standards of bureaucratic efficiency and performance and increase in political violence and disorder. It is said that in governing the greatest difficulty lies in enabling the government to control the governed and oblige it to control itself. Bangladesh is unable to perform the first function, much less the second. The primary problem is not liberty but the creation of a legitimate public order. People may have order without liberty but they cannot have liberty without order.

Modernising countries like Bangladesh the administration cannot avoid pressures due to change in the lives of people economically, socially and politically. Increase media exposure, increase in literacy, urbanisation give rise to enhanced aspirations which, if unsatisfied, galvanise individuals and groups into politics. Such increases in participation often result in instability and violence. In Sri Lanka the school system expanded rapidly between 1948 and 1956. Increased number of students graduating were directly related to the electoral overthrow of the government in elections in 1956. Similarly in Korea students and unemployed graduates led to political instability in 1960s. The problem posed by the rapid expansion of primary education compelled Nigerian government to reassess its policies.

Social mobilisation increases aspirations. Though economic growth increases capacity of a society to Satisfy those aspirations it can be argued at the same time that economic development itself is a destabilising process because rapid economic growth (a) disrupts traditional social groupings, (b) produces nouveaux riches who want political power and social status commensurate with their new economic position, (c) Increases geographical mobility, literacy, exposure to mass media and fall of standard of some people, (d) aggravates regional and ethnic conflicts over the distribution of investment and consumption.

Political participation assists advancement of socially motivated individual. Social frustration leads to demands on government and expansion of political participation to enforce these demands. Lack of mobility opportunities and low level of political institutionalism produces a correlation between social frustration and political instability in a modernising country like Bangladesh.

Modernisation affects economic inequality and thus political instability in two ways. First, wealth and income are normally more unevenly distributed in poor countries. Social mobilisation increases awareness of this inequality. Second, though economic development produces a more equitable distribution of income the immediate impact of economic growth often results in increase of income inequalities. The gains of rapid economic growth are often concentrated in a few groups (as in Bangladesh) while losses are diffused among many. This results in actual increase in number of poorer people.

Despite loud claim by the present government of very bright prospect for foreign direct investment (FDI) it is difficult to accept it because of existing political instability and failures of the administration for the last three years. After all registration with BOI is only meaningful after the start of implementation of the projects. The attitude of the donor countries and the donor agencies toward Bangladesh appears to be very discouraging. By attempting to put all the blame on the opposition parties, particularly AL, the government is losing credibility. How the opposition can be more powerful than the governmental missions? Failure of the missions may be due to politicisation of administration. What about foreign press? Do they rely on local source of information only? Government itself admits about the serious problem of governance.

It is an open secret that much talked about anti-corruption commission could not start working though it was set up three months back. At last the government has taken action against JMJB JMB. It has been suggested by the government that AL has been responsible for postponement of 13th SAARC Summit. How can we believe that Indian political machinery can be easily influenced by a political party of another country? Why should we ignore the fact that this is not the first time that SAARC summit has been postponed. Thus such immature comments do not create good impression about the government.

With more than two thirds majority in the parliament why the government always points at AL as the destroyer of all its pious wishes? Though too late the government should wake up from its slumber and see for itself that its dilatoriness or inertia during the last three years has brought us to this stage. Instead of confrontational politics the only option that remains open for the BNP-led alliance government is to start work in right earnest to retrieve its position to an acceptable level. As a government of a crisis ridden country like Bangladesh the only worthwhile exercise will be to give full attention to bring law and order to an acceptable level, to help start operation of the anti-corruption commission, to implementing separation of judiciary and if possible to rightsizing the government. Unnecessary confrontation with opposition parties will never bring for it political or economic benefit. It is better to be late than never.

A B M S Zahur is a retired joint secretary.