Election 2007: What role for the donors?
Both the nations have enjoyed good relations with Bangladesh for some time. Nepal's king came to Dhaka in the last Saarc meeting and the former PM of Thailand even flew to Chittagong to accompany Bangladesh's PM when Begum Zia visited Chiang Mai and Bangkok in 2005.
The way politics is unfolding in Dhaka in recent months, it is a nightmare for any commentator to predict what will happen next. This commentary, however, is not about a prediction on fall or rise of the government. It rather makes some observations about Bangladesh's donors and their roles in the next general election whenever it is held.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. The donors, particularly, the US, the EU, Japan and Australia played a major role in holding the last three elections (1991, 1996, and 2001) in terms of sending international poll observers. One accepts it or not, but without an "all clear" from the international poll observers, no winning party could have legitimately claimed the seat of power in the past.
This time thinks look different. Already, the US and the EU made it clear that they are not going to accept the legitimacy of a winner in the next election, unless the election has been found to be conducted on a "level playing field." By all means, this is a pre-emptive strike by the donors.
This kind of early warning has never been heard of in the history of an independent nation. The donors after taking a close look at the activities surrounding the next election, either on the part of the incumbent, the EC, or the prospective head of the CTG, were forced to issue such a warning.
Since the beginning of this year, the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office despatched many concrete proposals to the incumbent and the opposition with a view to holding a free and fair election. The latest despatch was the EU envoys' press conference in Dhaka and an IMF delegation meeting the Opposition Leader on Monday May 8.
The messages from these two groups of foreign donors have been clear. The EU wants a compromise between the government and the opposition and the IMF seeks supports from the opposition on the PRGF including cooperation in the energy sector.
Whatever they say in public, the undercover agenda is clear. They warn the government and the opposition against any turmoil like recently seen in the kingdoms of Nepal and Thailand. One may, however, mention that the trouble in Nepal was the creation of the sitting king, while a catastrophe was avoided in Thailand by the direct intervention of the king of that nation, who is very popular and revered.
In Bangladesh's case, the donors know it well that this nation has no king or queen who could have come forward to rescue the nation in a crisis. It is, therefore, someone from the donors who has to play the role of a saviour to keep the rival political parties talking.
Alternatively, there is always a threat of a third party to grab power (to which Bangladesh is not a stranger). Obviously, this is a huge task for the donors, particularly, the envoys from the EU, US, Australia, and Japan to take a mediator's role.
It was not long ago that the Bangladesh-born UK envoy was the victim of the political expediency committed on this soil. Also, the US had to withdraw the members of its civilian peace corps a few months back due to a threat on their lives again from the Islamist quarter.
Under these circumstances, the donors' role up to the next election is indeed a huge challenge. One would argue that the forces which have been terrorising the nation are under custody now, including all the Shura members of the JMB. The point is, how can one be sure that the nation is now floating on milk and honey as far as the terrorists are concerned?
Having said that, the donors must accept the fact that, Bangladesh politicians in the seat of power never learn from history. The envoys of donor nations will not forget the scenes they witnessed during the by-election for Dhaka-10 in 2004. We purposefully mentioned this case since most of the envoys do live in and around this area.
The objective here is to remind the donors not to make the same mistakes of learning no lessons from Bangladesh's political history and playing the game only for the interest of a few.
For the greater interest of the nation, this land was bloodied over and over again since the period of the partition of the greater India in 1947. Bangalees fought a language movement in 1950s, fought against Pakistani military ruler General Ayub in the 1960s, fought a liberation war in early 1970s, fought against Bangladeshi military ruler General Ershad in 1980s, fought against the first government of Khaleda Zia in mid 1990s, and now another fight is brewing against the Khaleda-Nizami government.
In other words, those of us who were born during the language movement in early 1950s have not witnessed a decade in the last fifty years when no blood was spilled on this soil due to police brutality on the street.
To face the challenge ahead one must understand the pulse of the Bengalee nation. Any wrong move now will turn the nation into a huge man-made catastrophe. One must also remember that in the 1950s this nation had 55 million people, in the 1970s it had 75 million, and now it has 140 million.
The challenges for the nation increased by three folds with no extra land added over the last five and a half decades. Under these circumstances, the donors' role, in our view, is to keep reminding the PMO to take lessons from our friends in the north and south. If the government engages in pitched battle with the support of its cadres and thugs to control legitimate demonstration, they are simple playing with fire -- that is the lesson from history.
Finally, during the Nepalese crisis, Dr Manmohan Singh's government in India played a strong but positive role to defuse the stalemate. Bangladesh's donors must act decisively to bring the government to their senses before it gets out of control. One does not have to remind the donors that a week in politics is a very long time.