Where angels fear to tread

I do not know why I am now being foolish enough to rush into the highly charged political arena. This I do in the belief that there is no alternative to resolving our problems through the political process. Therefore, we should all attempt to nudge the politicians and the society towards a common ground for the common good. What needs to be done is widely known, but the political and societal will to do it is missing.

I have no doubt that the recent plan of the civic leaders to field "honest" candidates is full of good intentions. However, similar efforts by Gono Forum not too long ago ended in a debacle. There are doubts whether, in the face of the highly organized and heavily funded political parties who are holding on to the appealing image of their founders, such efforts would succeed.

Fielding candidates and giving them election symbols are political acts, not a civic society function. There has not been people's involvement in the process so far and the demand for injecting "honest" candidates has not come from the grass-roots level.

I am afraid that the selection of such candidates and campaigning for them might get embroiled in the same kind of dirty and divisive politics and personal rivalry, as at present with the political party candidates, even of the same party.

Better would be for the civil society members to actively take part in politics and work for the nomination of "honest" candidates from within the political parties, instead of trying to influence the process from a safe and comfortable distance. Questions would also arise about the financing of the civil society initiative. Financing from foreign sources will be inappropriate and financing by local business/industrial community would not be any different from what is currently going on. In either case, it would be suspect in the eyes of the ordinary people.

There are deep divisions in the country -- social and political. While the country is growing at a respectable rate, income and wealth disparity between the rich and the poor has increased tremendously. Potentially this could lead the nation someday to an explosive situation unless we take remedial measures. Recent rise in militancy of the criminal, as well as the Islamic variety may well be the early signs of that possibility. It is time to examine the issues that make us cynical and prevent us from developing a strong sense of patriotism and an optimistic outlook about the country's future. The general elections will come and go and may even increase confrontation between the parties further due to election posturing and the need to score points at any cost.

Previous democratic elections have shown that each of the major parties get around one-third of the popular votes, but the Awami League has scored more in percentage terms than the BNP during the last three general elections. The ratio of votes between the two major parties may not change very much in the next election, but the composition of the next government may be different due to the parliamentary seats going disproportionately to one of the two major political groupings. However, if there is a change of government, it is not likely to alter the existing divisions in the country, as the new government, as with past governments, may be prone to behave in a retaliatory and tit-for-tat manner. This would further exacerbate the antagonistic feelings and irrational emotions.

Clearly, we are in a vicious circle from which we should make all attempts to extricate the nation. The trouble is that we have many energetic "dividers," but so far lacking in dedicated and persevering "uniters." The question arises, who would lose if we move toward a common ground and who gains from continuing disunity and strife? A blunt answer would be that the existing parties and their leadership have the most to gain from the perpetuation of the political divide. However, it is also possible that the parties are bankrupt of ideas and a new vision for the future. They play the only game of recrimination and vengeance that they know and to which they are accustomed. Due to the failure of a balanced and viable third national party to emerge, people are having to vote for the BNP or the Awami League alternately to power in the mistaken belief that these parties, once in power, would change their ways and some good will come out of it.

Since the early days of independence, we failed to achieve a social and political compact, a broad consensus about building the new state. Instead, the constitution was changed within a couple of years, providing a one-party state as an antidote to the mounting social, political, and economic problems. Subsequently, the country went through several upheavals of a traumatic kind, including military rule, while searching for its identity and purpose. The constitution was amended a number of times and moved away from secularism and socialism. Politics led to a situation in which the religious card was played by most of the political parties. However, on the economic side, a consensus gradually emerged under which free market policies and private enterprise took precedence over a state-managed economy and ownership of banks and major enterprises.

In recent years, significant progress has been made on the economic front, particularly in the private sector. The economy is growing at a respectable rate of growth and Bangladesh is ahead of many developing countries in reaching the millennium development goals. This, however, has not been matched by developments in the political front. In fact, it has become a warring front between the two main parties, whose leadership do not even socially mix and whose top two leaders avoid each other. People were hoping that perhaps after three general elections, the country's sick politics would cure itself. Alas, that hope has proved illusory. But the people of Bangladesh would not let their economic lives and prospects be diminished by continued political squabbles. If this situation continues, traditional politics may gradually become irrelevant and economic imperatives would then determine politics, instead of the other way around. Needs of a bourgeois/industrial society for freedom of expression and action, unimpeded freedom of entry and exit from business, access to capital and markets without governmental or political influence and unfettered decision making in the interest of an enterprise might sidetrack the kind of politics prevalent in the country. Business would then more heavily influence the government from behind. It is an unwelcome prospect.

An educated and politically conscious electorate is a precondition for a successful democracy. The flourishing electronic and print media and the school and colleges in private and public sector have made some progress in educating the electorate. Free and fair elections are essential and we must ensure that people can freely come to the voting booth, exercise their right to vote and that the counting and declaration of winners are transparent. Since both major parties claim that majority of the voters are with them, I see no reason why together they would not be able to work out the conditions and mechanism for having a free and fair election. Even after that, the question remains whether the losing party would gracefully accept the results, participate in the parliament and serve as a constructive and responsible opposition. We had unhappy experiences in the recent past. Our political leaders, particularly when in opposition, do not seem to realize that in a democracy, whatever our differences may be, the place to debate and sort these out is the parliament.

The role of the parliament needs to be strengthened by all political parties. The parliamentary committees are functioning, but more life and action need to be injected into them by cooperation between the parties. The parliament should ensure greater equity in our development and opening up of opportunities for all, whether in rural or urban areas. This would ensure greater stability, peace and contentment among the people. The current practice by the government in power to politicize the public services, including the police, armed forces and the judiciary, is demoralizing. It is totally inconsistent with the need for an efficient and modern public service to promote and maintain growth.

In addition, there should be a real devolution of functions and powers from Dhaka, backed by revenue resources and trained personnel, to the elected local authorities at various tiers. There will be less corruption and more accountability if local governments are running their development programs and administration.

However, local government by itself is not a foolproof system for good and corruption-free government. Effective monitoring by local civic associations would be necessary and the public should have the ability to watch its proceedings by attendance in visitors' gallery and via radio and TV. We may provide for three-yearly elections to local and municipal bodies for the people to weed out corrupt and inefficient persons.

It is also of paramount importance to have democracy within the political parties, with regular conferences and election of office bearers. While the parties cry hoarse in the name of democracy, they are yet to practice it themselves within their own party.

Let us turn around, take progressive political measures and together agree on a national compact to accelerate economic and social growth for all Bangladeshis.

Azizur Jalil is a freelance contributor of The Daily Star.