Published in The Daily Star, September 27, 2008
THIS Government was doing its best not too long ago to get rid of Kh
aleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, believing that such a move was in nation's interests and easier said than done. It tried the minus-two formula but failed. Then it attempted to break the two parties to form a “king's party”. That too failed. Now the Government has realized that there cannot be politics in Bangladesh without Khaleda and Hasina, nor without the BNP and the AL. The Commerce Adviser as the Government's Spokesman has thus suggested a “Summit” between the two ladies.
A reality check underlines the fact that the two ladies have firmly re-established their position as leader of their respective parties, neither of which has broken. This Government's initiatives for political reform have also not succeeded. It does not have the power anymore that it had when it came to office with widespread support of the people to exert pressure on politics. When politics has returned back to the laps of the two former Prime Ministers, what can a Summit between the two achieve?
A working relationship between Khaleda and Hasina, when Bangladesh came out of its long tryst with military dictatorship in 1991 could have achieved wonders for the nation. A lack of it influenced politics to degenerate into the streets where the two main parties, the BNP and the AL tried to dislodge each other from office to which the people freely elected them. Hundreds of days were lost in hartals that the two parties indulged in their unconstitutional ways to force an elected Government out of power in which the damage to the national economy ran into thousands of crores of taka. It is just not that the economy was damaged; people's livelihoods and their children's education were all equally adversely affected. State sponsored corruption earned Bangladesh the infamous crown as the most corrupt country in the world and we came to the doorsteps of being a failed state. In their lust for power, the politicians refused to acknowledge that hartals just made governance impossible but had no impact on its duration for despite the hartals, the three elected governments completed their terms.
It is common knowledge that the two ladies dislike each other immensely, the intensity much deeper in Hasina. There have been strange manifestations of the personal level where such dislike was taken. When the AL declared August 15th as National Mourning Day in 1996, the BNP started celebrating this day as Khaleda Zia's birthday. When Hasina came to office, her close associates were instructed to address her as “sir” because Khaleda Zia was referred to “madam“ in official and party circles when she was in power. It is a pity that the two ladies, who are both victims of political assassinations, are so opposed to each other at personal level.
It is however worse that those who have been advising the two leaders never tried to ease the animosity between Khaleda Zia and Hasina that was at the root of the politics of agitation, violence and general mayhem in the streets. Instead, they did enough to make the two ladies drift further apart, afraid that by suggesting they make friendship, they would incur their wrath. Hence, they did the opposite, fanned their dislikes and helped sustain an unbelievable and unhealthy political climate that has harmed the nation immensely.
The same people are again by the side of the two leaders, apart from a few who are in jail. When the two leaders themselves were in jail, some of these leaders, encouraged by the minus-two initiative, had called for reforms in their respective parties. Now they are therefore more sycophantic to get back into favour of their respective leaders. The recent meetings in the Awami League have all been about Hasina and how much the nation and AL needs her leadership. Inside BNP, it is worse. In their first meeting with Khaleda after her bail, they elected her President for life, knowing this is fascism and the party constitution does not allow this. It is return to the politics of sycophancy in both the parties. The AL is out to re-establish the supremacy of their “Netri” while the BNP, their “Desh Netri”. Thus in both parties, the climate is not conducive for the Summit.
Of course, the two leaders could themselves decide on the Summit. But what would be its outcome? The problem between the two is not political for if it is so, there could be a resolution by discussion. It is deeper, something that Barrister Rafique who is taking upon the Commerce Adviser's call for the Summit is not competent to handle, his respect and acumen as a lawyer and his closeness to both the leaders notwithstanding. The problem between the two is rooted in their psyche that only a professional can help resolve. One must not forget that Hasina and Khaleda had no professional help after their tragedies. In case of Hasina, given the depth of the tragedy, the need was much greater. A legal mind, no matter how competent, may not be able to make any headway with the problem.
1/11 has created consciousness among the people against the nature of politics of the Awami League and BNP before emergency, their frustration with this Government notwithstanding. The details of corruption in top leadership in the two parties must have convinced Khaleda and Hasina that they have suffered humiliation largely because of their associates, though their failure to control them is unacceptable. On personal level, though cases have been framed against them for corruption, it is unlikely either will be finally convicted for neither has taken money for personal gains. In case of Hasina, she and her sister have gifted to the nation property many times more than the amount for which she is being accused. These factors are likely to weigh heavily on the two leaders as they start a new phase of politics in Bangladesh. 1/11 is a watershed in our politics.
A summit is not the realistic step to cash upon the gains the nation has achieved at considerable pain. Politics and its future now depend on how Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia handle their parties and their party leaders; not how they conduct their never-existing relationship with each other. It would be more fruitful if the Chief Adviser and the CEC would instead sit with the two ladies separately for the following. First impress upon them that their working relationship is crucial for the country and in the past, Bangladesh has suffered immensely as a consequence of the lack of it. Second, convey to them that there is a consensus in the country that their dislike should not be at the expense of the country's future. Third, urge them to contest in the elections and accept the verdict. If they have problems with any issue relating to their participation, let them hear these and sort these out so that neither would have to resort to violence after the elections. Fourth, encourage them to nominate honest people in the next elections as there is now a consensus against corruption in politics. Fifth, make Parliament the main focus for resolution of conflicts through a bipartisan approach on national issues once elections are held. Finally, urge them to make hartal history and break the nexus of politics and crime. The CA has not yet shown his worth; let this initiative be his litmus test that he deserves the post he is holding at a critical stage of our history. Barrister Rafique could supplement this process by talking to the ladies separately instead of making a media event with a Summit.
A Summit between the two ladies is seventeen years too late. The focus should now be elsewhere for let us not forget that a lot has happened in the last eighteen months that has perhaps made the two ladies wiser. They need to be convinced that between them, they have Bangladesh's future in their hands and that theirs and the nation's enemies are in their own midst - the sycophants - who did not raise a finger when they were both incarcerated and they have suffered for the greed and corrupt nature of these sycophants by being in jail where they should not have gone in the first instance if they had controlled these enemies of the nation. If they can be made to see these realities around them, their closeness would follow naturally without the need of a Summit that seems to be coming to us as another media fanned drama. That is the last thing we need.
THIS Government was doing its best not too long ago to get rid of Kh
aleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, believing that such a move was in nation's interests and easier said than done. It tried the minus-two formula but failed. Then it attempted to break the two parties to form a “king's party”. That too failed. Now the Government has realized that there cannot be politics in Bangladesh without Khaleda and Hasina, nor without the BNP and the AL. The Commerce Adviser as the Government's Spokesman has thus suggested a “Summit” between the two ladies.A reality check underlines the fact that the two ladies have firmly re-established their position as leader of their respective parties, neither of which has broken. This Government's initiatives for political reform have also not succeeded. It does not have the power anymore that it had when it came to office with widespread support of the people to exert pressure on politics. When politics has returned back to the laps of the two former Prime Ministers, what can a Summit between the two achieve?
A working relationship between Khaleda and Hasina, when Bangladesh came out of its long tryst with military dictatorship in 1991 could have achieved wonders for the nation. A lack of it influenced politics to degenerate into the streets where the two main parties, the BNP and the AL tried to dislodge each other from office to which the people freely elected them. Hundreds of days were lost in hartals that the two parties indulged in their unconstitutional ways to force an elected Government out of power in which the damage to the national economy ran into thousands of crores of taka. It is just not that the economy was damaged; people's livelihoods and their children's education were all equally adversely affected. State sponsored corruption earned Bangladesh the infamous crown as the most corrupt country in the world and we came to the doorsteps of being a failed state. In their lust for power, the politicians refused to acknowledge that hartals just made governance impossible but had no impact on its duration for despite the hartals, the three elected governments completed their terms.
It is common knowledge that the two ladies dislike each other immensely, the intensity much deeper in Hasina. There have been strange manifestations of the personal level where such dislike was taken. When the AL declared August 15th as National Mourning Day in 1996, the BNP started celebrating this day as Khaleda Zia's birthday. When Hasina came to office, her close associates were instructed to address her as “sir” because Khaleda Zia was referred to “madam“ in official and party circles when she was in power. It is a pity that the two ladies, who are both victims of political assassinations, are so opposed to each other at personal level.
It is however worse that those who have been advising the two leaders never tried to ease the animosity between Khaleda Zia and Hasina that was at the root of the politics of agitation, violence and general mayhem in the streets. Instead, they did enough to make the two ladies drift further apart, afraid that by suggesting they make friendship, they would incur their wrath. Hence, they did the opposite, fanned their dislikes and helped sustain an unbelievable and unhealthy political climate that has harmed the nation immensely.
The same people are again by the side of the two leaders, apart from a few who are in jail. When the two leaders themselves were in jail, some of these leaders, encouraged by the minus-two initiative, had called for reforms in their respective parties. Now they are therefore more sycophantic to get back into favour of their respective leaders. The recent meetings in the Awami League have all been about Hasina and how much the nation and AL needs her leadership. Inside BNP, it is worse. In their first meeting with Khaleda after her bail, they elected her President for life, knowing this is fascism and the party constitution does not allow this. It is return to the politics of sycophancy in both the parties. The AL is out to re-establish the supremacy of their “Netri” while the BNP, their “Desh Netri”. Thus in both parties, the climate is not conducive for the Summit.
Of course, the two leaders could themselves decide on the Summit. But what would be its outcome? The problem between the two is not political for if it is so, there could be a resolution by discussion. It is deeper, something that Barrister Rafique who is taking upon the Commerce Adviser's call for the Summit is not competent to handle, his respect and acumen as a lawyer and his closeness to both the leaders notwithstanding. The problem between the two is rooted in their psyche that only a professional can help resolve. One must not forget that Hasina and Khaleda had no professional help after their tragedies. In case of Hasina, given the depth of the tragedy, the need was much greater. A legal mind, no matter how competent, may not be able to make any headway with the problem.
1/11 has created consciousness among the people against the nature of politics of the Awami League and BNP before emergency, their frustration with this Government notwithstanding. The details of corruption in top leadership in the two parties must have convinced Khaleda and Hasina that they have suffered humiliation largely because of their associates, though their failure to control them is unacceptable. On personal level, though cases have been framed against them for corruption, it is unlikely either will be finally convicted for neither has taken money for personal gains. In case of Hasina, she and her sister have gifted to the nation property many times more than the amount for which she is being accused. These factors are likely to weigh heavily on the two leaders as they start a new phase of politics in Bangladesh. 1/11 is a watershed in our politics.
A summit is not the realistic step to cash upon the gains the nation has achieved at considerable pain. Politics and its future now depend on how Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia handle their parties and their party leaders; not how they conduct their never-existing relationship with each other. It would be more fruitful if the Chief Adviser and the CEC would instead sit with the two ladies separately for the following. First impress upon them that their working relationship is crucial for the country and in the past, Bangladesh has suffered immensely as a consequence of the lack of it. Second, convey to them that there is a consensus in the country that their dislike should not be at the expense of the country's future. Third, urge them to contest in the elections and accept the verdict. If they have problems with any issue relating to their participation, let them hear these and sort these out so that neither would have to resort to violence after the elections. Fourth, encourage them to nominate honest people in the next elections as there is now a consensus against corruption in politics. Fifth, make Parliament the main focus for resolution of conflicts through a bipartisan approach on national issues once elections are held. Finally, urge them to make hartal history and break the nexus of politics and crime. The CA has not yet shown his worth; let this initiative be his litmus test that he deserves the post he is holding at a critical stage of our history. Barrister Rafique could supplement this process by talking to the ladies separately instead of making a media event with a Summit.
A Summit between the two ladies is seventeen years too late. The focus should now be elsewhere for let us not forget that a lot has happened in the last eighteen months that has perhaps made the two ladies wiser. They need to be convinced that between them, they have Bangladesh's future in their hands and that theirs and the nation's enemies are in their own midst - the sycophants - who did not raise a finger when they were both incarcerated and they have suffered for the greed and corrupt nature of these sycophants by being in jail where they should not have gone in the first instance if they had controlled these enemies of the nation. If they can be made to see these realities around them, their closeness would follow naturally without the need of a Summit that seems to be coming to us as another media fanned drama. That is the last thing we need.
No comments:
Post a Comment