The perils of confrontational politics

It appears that both the parties have failed to realise the need for removing the existing impediments towards setting up true democratic order in an underdeveloped country like Bangladesh, with its high rate of illiteracy, high rate of population below absolute poverty line, increasing danger of religions extremist group affecting the image of Bangladesh as a moderate Islamic state, highly unsatisfactory law and order maintenance, corruption and so called political restlessness.

Apparently these parties are more interested in capturing power than establishing a democratic value system. They hardly feel for ameliorating the condition of the common people. Strangely enough they point to each other's faults and failures even at normal situation. They seem incapable of appreciating each other's successes or achievements. They do not spare even the founders of the parties.

But these parties through their united effort forced military dictator Ershad to abdicate. What Pakistanis or the people of Myanmar could not do Bangladeshis did. Today the people of Nepal might have drawn their inspiration from Bangladesh in fighting against their king. Both AL and BNP parties have large number of freedom fighters. Both have secular outlook.

As we see, with parliamentary multi-party system existing in Bangladesh both the parties will continue to dominate its politics for long. Thus what is needed at this stage is sacrificing each other's egotism for the sake of establishing democratic practices in the country. By adopting confrontational politics they are not only doing harm to their own parties but also increasing sufferings of the people and creating negative image for the foreign investors and unrest in society.

A few words on Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh. The party was never a political force in Pakistani days. Due to its anti-liberation stand it lost its identity till 1975 when Ziaur Rahman needed them to form a party for himself to face Awami League. After the assassination of Zia and assumption of power by Ershad the new dictator also utilised their support to face BNP and the AL. After the return of democracy Jamaat was needed for forming majority in the parliament by BNP during the first term of Khaleda Zia (1991-96).

Because of inexperience in administration and strong pressure of AL to destabilise the government, the BNP high command did not keep a vigil on the activities of JI. This opportunity was perhaps duly utilised by JI to strengthen their financial condition through contacting various agencies in the Middle East. They also believably revived their contacts with members of JI in Pakistan.

During the AL regime of 1996-2001 the militant organisations of Jamaat or linked with Jamaat started showing their strength through explosion of bombs at different places. By underestimating the strength of these organisations and with a view to not displeasing the alliance partner perhaps the Islami militants were almost allowed to terrorise people. Despite capture of some top leaders of JMB Bangladesh is certainly not out of danger from the extremist militants so long as the partnership continues.

The BNP seemingly became a true political party under the leadership of Khaleda Zia. By joining hands with Jamaat, BNP has been able to strengthen its hold on rural people, particularly in the northern Bangladesh. This has been attained at the cost of its former image as a moderate democratic party. On the other hand, Jamaat gained a lot without losing anything. In fact, Jamaat's assessment that BNP may lose in election if Jamaat withdraws its support is substantially correct.

Thus BNP, as we understand, cannot participate in any major issues of the government without Jamaat. The issue of reform of Election Commission or caretaker government are major issues. Furthermore, if the AL could tolerate JI during its regime why it is so adamant now against JI's participation? After all, nothing is bigger than the interest of the nation.

The CEC is behaving in peculiar fashion. Strange, even the Supreme Court's decision is not implemented properly by the CEC who is supposed to be a dignified justice. By trying to implement his dubious policy he will not only lose his dignity but also place the country in a dangerous situation. If a few thousand simple and peaceful people in Kansat can stand against the might of the governmental force and if Shonir Akhra can become a battleground and if the people of Chittagong can teach the government a lesson in the mayoral election, then a dissatisfaction countrywide may push the country itself to anarchy. We should also not ignore the existing unrest in the garment sector. So why these apparently revered persons should put themselves at risk by committing controversial jobs?

Even though only four months are left of the tenure of the alliance government it is still behaving strangely. Why the government is nervous at the organisation of Mahasamabesh by the AL and the 14 parties? The ability to mobilise thousands of people from across the country will not ensure them victory in the election. Victory will depend mainly on parties' achievements and failures, candidates' character and reputation among the voters concerned.

If fair election cannot be held there is a strong possibility for drying up of foreign assistance from the developed democratic western countries. Holding a fair and free election under controversial CEC and the two election commissioners has become uncertain. At the same time people have started asking the ruling alliance to fulfil their commitments made in the last election. The present government has miserably failed in the following areas: (a) generation of electricity, (b) supply of adequate water for drinking and irrigation, (c) separation of judiciary from the executive, (d) controlling corruption, (e) appointment of ombudsman, (f) undertaking administrative reform, (g) law and order.

A few words may be said about Jatiya Party of Ershad. Because of his background as an "armed bureaucrat" Ershad could perhaps run a better administration than both AL and the 4-party alliance. However, there cannot be any comparison between a democratic rule and autocratic rule. If Ershad is allowed full freedom to continue all of his political activities he may emerge as a strong contender in the elections.

Endless demand for resignation of the present government (whose tenure ends after four months) by AL appears of not much significance. Repetition of hartals frequently at this time also does not make much sense. Instead they hear words from the alliance government as to their proposal for reform of election commission and the caretaker government.

To conduct fair and free election, an understanding between the AL and the BNP must be reached. It would be a folly for the present government to try to outsmart the AL. It would be advisable for AL to restrict their statements only to constructive criticism. Both sides should be sincere and honest in bringing congenial atmosphere for holding fair and free election to save the country from sliding into a state of degeneracy.

ABMS Zahur is a retired Joint Secretary.