For an “inclusive” national election
M. Serajul Islam
These
days, those who think of the country and in which direction it is going are
concerned about the next national election in a manner they have never been
with any of the past national elections. It is now a matter of a few months
that the Awami League would complete its five year term and the country would
have a new government through national election. What is supposed to be a
normal democratic exercise is shaping to be anything but normal as the time
nears for the voters to exercise their democratic and sovereign right to elect
a new government of their choice. The two mainstream parties, the ruling Awami
League and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) are fighting over
the way the national election would be held. The Awami League wants the national
election to be held under an interim government to be headed by the incumbent
Prime Minister. The BNP is convinced and afraid that such a national election
would be fraught with interference by the ruling party and it would be futile
to participate in such an election. It therefore insists that the next national
election should be held under the Caretaker Government (CG) system for it to be
free, fair and transparent. The fight, unless resolved, has all the potentials
to send Bangladesh towards political disaster it has never faced since the
country became independent.
The
Awami League has already amended the Constitution (15th amendment)
using its 3/4th majority in parliament to conduct the next national
election under the interim government. In amending the Constitution, the AL
ignored the High Court ruling that had recommended that the next 2 national
elections should be held under the CG system before the system is scrapped. The
High Court was of the opinion that due to the conflicting nature of politics,
it would be in the interest of the country to do so before holding national
elections under elected government. The AL’s only argument for annulling the CG
system is that unelected government cannot hold democratic elections or
establish democratic governments. It did not care to explain why CG system was
introduced in Bangladesh; its own role and reasons for demanding the CG system;
the results the CG system brought for the country and whether it (the present
AL Government) can be considered a legal and/or democratic government t having
been elected by the system that it considers cannot elect a democratic/legal
government. The way the bill for
annulment of the CG system and its replacement for elections under the interim government
was hurried through the parliament (it took a few hours to do so where all who
were present were from the ruling party as the opposition had boycotted it)
left many in doubt about the wisdom and intent of the ruling party regarding
the next national election.
The
BNP rejected the 15th amendment outright. They argued that the Awami
League used the High Court to serve its political ends; that it used one part
of Court’s decision and annulled the CG system but ignored the other part by
refusing to hold the next two national elections under the CG system. The BNP
had other strong arguments against the politically motivated nature of the
annulment of the CG system. The BNP argued that the Awami League will not hold
a free and fair election if those elections were to be conducted by an interim
government headed by Sheikh Hasina. In making this argument, the BNP did not
say anything new in the politics of the country. It simply argued what the AL
had argued in 1991-96. At that time the AL had argued that it could not trust
free and fair elections under an interim government headed by the BNP and that
for national elections to be free, fair, transparent and democratic, the
country needed to have a CG system. The AL had taken to the streets and had
made hartal a major strategy to force the BNP to accept its demand. In fact, in
that period, the AL had called over 170 days of hartal during which the damages
and destruction were widespread. The AL also boycotted the parliament at that
time to force the BNP to introduce the CG system.
The
BNP also argued that under the present AL government, the administration has
been politicized in a major way and the law enforcing agencies have also been
like wise politicized; two structures crucial to hold a free and fair national
election. When the AL had pressured the BNP for introducing the CG system, the
bureaucracy and the law enforcing agencies had not been as politicized as it has
been at present. At least, the AL did not accuse the BNP Government then the
way the BNP is making the point of politicization against the AL government
now. The BNP also has a major issue over the Election Commission that would be
expected to ensure the fairness and freeness of the national elections under an
interim government to be headed by Sheikh Hasina as the Prime Minister. It did
not participate in the process the Election Commission was chosen in which late
President Ziaur Rahman had played a significant role although because it
doubted how much independence he had in freely choosing the EC outside the
dictates of the ruling party.
The
AL has made a strong case based on the way the Election Commission has
conducted the local government elections to reject the BNP’s demand for
restoration of the CG system. The AL has strengthened this contention more
forcefully after the recent elections in the four city corporations in which it
lost badly to the BNP backed candidates. In the local elections held before
these 4 elections too, the BNP had fared much better than the AL. The AL has
stated that as it has held free and fair local government elections and lost in
most of these elections; the BNP has no reason to feel that national election
under it would be any different. The BNP has not been convinced by this line of
argument. It has claimed that local government elections and national elections
are in different league and that in 1991-96, the AL had won important city
elections in Dhaka and Chittagong but that did not encourage it at all to
accept that the BNP was capable of conducting such free and fair elections at
the national level. Thus in continuing to demand the CG system for national
election, the BNP is arguing its case exactly as the AL had done in 1991-96.
The
arguments of the two parties for and against the CG system notwithstanding, the
local government elections and national elections are in reality not in the
same league. To argue that because the local elections have been free and fair
under the present government and the EC, the national election would also be
likewise is not correct for a number of reasons. For one, the stakes in the two
elections are polar opposites. The stakes for the ruling party to interfere and
turn the results in its favour in local governments are negligible. Victory in
local elections does not give a national party the power to govern; the power
to do pretty much what it likes. The way politics has evolved in Bangladesh, being
in the government gives immense powers to the Prime Minister, the Ministers or
others in elected positions. It also to those who are members of the ruling
party and its various affiliated wings power to act like the government and use
its powers for personal benefits. In their direct and indirect involvement,
these ruling party members not just exercise unlimited and unbridled power;
they also make huge sums of money, a lot of it in ill gotten ways. In fact, the
system that Bangladesh now has is an adulterated version of the US spoils
system that has been deliberately allowed to go berserk.
There
is another very important stake that the AL has in national elections; one that
is very crucial to its motivation in winning it. Victory in the next national election is not just a return for it
to office to continue to enjoy the perks of power and the immense benefits that
go with it; it is also an insurance against threat of harassment, persecution
and spending time in jail in case it loses it. In the AL’s current term in
office, the BNP leaders have faced harassment, persecution and time in jail in
ways no opposition party leaders in Bangladesh’s political history have. In
addition, BNP leaders have also been taken on remand and tortured, something
that has never been done to opposition political leaders in the past. The AL’s
motivation to return to power is thus a strong one; it fears the same fate
would befall its leaders if the BNP comes to power. As for the BNP, it has another strong motivation to stick to its
demand for the CG system. All cases of corruption that were filed against the
AL by the last CG/military government were withdrawn when the AL assumed power.
These cases were in thousands. Not one case against the BNP also in thousands
has been withdrawn while many hundreds more have been filed against them by the
AL Government. The BNP needs to have a fair chance of winning the next national
election in order to save its members from being harassed and prosecuted on
charges of corruption, majority of which are politically motivated.
The
AL has argued that as power under a CG system would be in the hands of
unelected people, elections under it would be un-democratic. In making this
argument, the AL has ignored the fact that the only free and fair national
elections in Bangladesh have been held under the CG system; four in all where
each parliament/government has completed
its full five years in office. Those held under the system that the AL now
wants have been rigged where the party in power has blatantly interfered in
ensuring the outcome in its favour. Thus unelected people have favoured and sustained
democracy better than have elected people. Further, despite its strong views
that government elected through the CG system cannot be democratic; it has been
silent about the fact that it was elected under such a system that was made
even less acceptable by that CG being under the grip of the
extra-constitutional forces, the military. Further, there is nowhere in any manual of
democracy that says that only elected people can hold democratic elections. In
most democracies, elections are held by independent commissions and institutions
who are all unelected individuals where elected governments under which such elections
are held have no power over election officials.
Democracy
is a dynamic concept that is changing and developing all the time. Democracy in
the context of the state in most general terms rests on two fundamental
pillars. The first is the rule of law and the second is the right of the people
to choose their government by free, fair and transparent election based on
universal adult franchise. Within these two pillars, functioning democracies
have resolved their concerns about undue interference in elections by the
government conducting it by establishing electoral laws and electoral
commissions comprising unelected people. They wasted no time or energy worrying
whether elected or unelected people conduct elections because they have no fear
that any force in the country, be it the ruling party or the government conducting
and favouring the ruling party can in anyway interfere with election. In
Bangladesh unfortunately, elections under party government have historically
not been fair or transparent. Ruling parties have blatantly used powers of the
government to interfere and turn election results in their favour because of
the poor state of the rule of law and the absence of credible election
commission. In fact, that was the reason
why the AL had demanded the CG system. That situation has worsened today. Countries in similar situation as Bangladesh
that fear government influence of the ruling party in national elections have
looked at the CG system that Bangladesh developed and then annulled with
positive interest. Pakistan just successfully conducted its national election
under the CG system and Nepal is getting ready for its national elections under
such a system. Believe it or not, the country that gave birth to democracy,
Greece, has held national elections on June 17th under the CG system
where the Head of the Council of State, the country’s highest administrative
court was the head of the caretaker administration!
Thus
the BNP is arguing for the same that the AL had argued in 1991-96; a level
playing field for free, fair and transparent national election that only the CG
system can ensure. Only, the developments in politics and the BNP’s predicament
in the last five years have lent a great deal more justification to the demand
for the restoration of the CG system than when the AL had demanded for its
acceptance in the constitution in 1991-96. Public opinion in the country also
favours the CG system for the next national election as the only way to bring
the country back on the rails. A poll recently conducted by Prothom Alo has
shown that 90% of the people want the next national election to be held under
the CG system. The result of this poll has been accepted by everybody except
the activists of the ruling party. All electronic polls conducted by newspapers
have favoured the CG system by the same margin as has all public opinion polls
conducted by the TV stations.
Friends
of Bangladesh have avoided getting involved in the controversy over the CG
system. They have instead suggested that Bangladesh must have, in the words of
the Canadian High Commissioner Heather Cruden, “free, fair, transparent “and
“inclusive” national election for political stability and its future. Before
her, the US Under-Secretary Wendy Sherman and the British Minister who visited
Bangladesh recently had also suggested “inclusive “national election. In other
words, they have all been unequivocal that the BNP must participate in the next
national election. The Canadian High
Commissioner has asked the AL to show the political will to amend the
Constitution to hold the “inclusive” national election. Today, the BNP is no
less acceptable in public perception than the AL and perhaps more so after winning
the city corporation elections that were fought on national issues by big
margins. Therefore simple common sense should lead to the simple conclusion
that the next national election in Bangladesh will not be free, fair,
transparent or legitimate if the BNP boycotted it.
Thus
the ball is now in the court of the Awami League to take Bangladesh away from
disaster over the issue of holding the next general election. As far as the
people are concerned, they do not want their choice of the next government to
be restricted to vote just for the AL that would turn the national election
into rubber stamping it back to power. Without “inclusive” national election, the
issue would be not whether Bangladesh would have a democratic election or not
for such an election would be undemocratic if not “inclusive” by any definition
as well as lose its legitimacy. More ominously, the issue would be whether
Bangladesh would survive as a nation without “inclusive” national election for
the dangers of not holding “inclusive” national election are too nightmarish
even to conjecture.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador
Gazipur
City Corporation Election: A shape of things to come
M.
Serajul Islam
The
Prime Minister herself intervened in the Gazipur City Corporation (GCC)
election to force Jahangir Alam out of the race amidst great drama and cries
from the BNP that the local government electoral laws were violated. This act
alone left little doubt how serious the ruling party was to win the GCC
election to convince itself and the nation that its popularity was not nose
diving as many thought it was after the candidates the party backed lost badly
in the four city corporation elections held on June the 15th. Senior Ministers, national party leaders and
57 ruling party MPs went to Gazipur to help out Azmatullah Khan. They went there despite the fact that Gazipur
is an AL citadel from where it won all five parliamentary seats in 2008 and all
four in 1996. To the AL, Gazipur is second only to Gopalgang. Thus all analysis in the media leading to the
GCC election had predicted that Gazipur would be different from elections in
Barisal, Khulna, Rajshahi and Sylhet.
In
fact, in the final days leading to the polls, these analyses even favoured
Azmat Khan because of the way the ruling party backed his candidature. News
that the BNP candidate had been involved in corruption as a former State
Minister for Religious Affairs and that the NBR would freeze his personal
accounts also encouraged many to think that the GCC election would not turn out
the same way as those held on June 15th. Additionally, as
candidates, the AL backed candidate was more presentable than his opponent.
Azmat had been in office as the Mayor of Tongi that was amalgamated to form the
new Gazipur City Corporation for 3 terms and there was no accusation against
him of issue of corruption. Like the four AL backed candidates who lost last month,
Azmatullah Khan too was a candidate who should have won easily and convincingly
under normal circumstances.
But
neither the 4 city corporation elections nor the GCC election were in any way
normal local government elections. There were very little local factors in
these elections and almost everything national. The electoral laws for local
government elections prohibit national political parties to participate in
these elections. Candidates participate in local elections on individual basis
and cannot use symbols of the national political parties. The reason is to keep
local elections completely out of the influence and purview of national
elections and national political parties. The laws notwithstanding, national parties
and national political leaders have customarily come in aid of candidates in
important local government elections. Doing so when the candidates do not use
party symbols or where the national parties do not use the party structure and organization
for aiding candidates at local elections are accepted within the purview of
laws guiding local elections.
However
what has happened with the 5 city corporations were different from what the
country has seen in past local government elections. In the June 15th
elections, there was clear violation of the spirit with which the local
government laws have been written and perhaps a little of the laws as well. In
case of the GCC election, there was clear violation of the laws while the
spirit was simply sacrificed by the way side. In Barisal, Khulna, Sylhet and
Rajshahi, both the ruling party and the BNP involved themselves as they would
if these were national elections. With national election round the corner and
the controversy over it between the two mainstream parties about the manner it
would be held unresolved, the BNP and the AL used the 4 city corporation
elections to test out people’s support for their parties and their causes. The
AL went national over the 4 city corporation polls to prove that free, fair and
transparent elections could be held under it and to use that to convince the
nation that there was no need for the caretaker system for national election.
The AL was confident that with good candidates who were contesting as sitting mayors,
they would win these elections. By fighting these elections over national
issues, it was also confident that the victories would establish its popularity
nationwide. Most importantly however, the AL felt that by allowing the
elections to be free and fair, it would be able to convince the nation that the
BNP’s demand for the CTG was unwarranted.
The
BNP leaders went to aid the candidates their party had backed to highlight to
the nation the failures of the government, in particular draw the nation’s
attention to the corruption over the Padma Bridge, scams in the share market,
Hallmark and Destiny, rising prices of essentials; lawlessness of the Chatra
League and the Jubo league and the deterioration of the law and order situation
in the country. The BNP saw in these elections the opportunity to flag for the
nation its charges against the ruling party that it missed by staying away from
the parliament. The BNP used the Barisal, Sylhet, Khulna and Rajshahi elections
to their heart’s content against the AL on national issues where it thought it
could catch the ruling party in a sticky wicket. In campaigning, the BNP thus
put forward its demand for the CTG as a core issue.
The
BNP, buoyed with the 4 victories that it claimed rejected of the AL nationally
over its failure in governance and support for the CTG, entered the GCC to use
a victory there as another nail in the AL coffin, a much more important one than
the previous 4 it had won because of Gazipur’s acceptance nationally as an AL citadel.
On back foot, the AL went to the GCC to establish that its popularity was not
on decline and what happened on June 15th was due to the failure of
the candidates and the local leadership who “had lost contact with the
people.” It was confident of victory in
Gazipur but also made sure that all was done for that victory, short of
interfering in the election directly. All government officials chosen for
purpose of the election that numbered a few thousand were chosen carefully
raising doubts in many minds and most of all in the opposition’s that there
would be interference to change the results for the ruling party candidate.
That did not happen because the AL wanted to hold the elections without
interfering so that it could claim that national election could also be held
under party government. However, the
way the polling officials were chosen left many wondering whether this was a
dress rehearsal for the general election. Many wondered also that the AL
allowed free and fair election to convince the nation to reject the BNP’s
demand for the CTG.
The
media ensured that even the little bit of local flavor in these elections
vanished and that these elections turned into direct battles between the AL and
the BNP for the hearts and minds of the people with the next national election
in perspective. In fact, the GCC election was painted in the media, both print
and electronic, as a de facto national election, a test of the popularity or
the lack of it of the ruling party and the opposition. Thus, after the
humiliating defeat in GCC, even the AL national leaders have grudgingly
acknowledged that the elections reflected the party’s declining popularity and
alarming bells for the national election. Even the ruling party’s claim that
the elections rejected the CTG, a sort of consolation prize for it from the
devastating defeats, did not seem to be a forceful one. The claim became even
weaker against the BNP’s strong claim that that by returning its candidates
convincingly, the city corporation elections established unequivocally a national support for the CTG, a view that most
people outside the AL’s inner circle supported before the elections and now
more convinced to be the need of the hour for the country.
AL’s
current predicament has been acknowledged by the ruling party itself. Senior
leader Obaidul Qader has said that the defeats are clear signs that the ruling
party has distanced itself from the people by the arrogance of it leaders, etc.
A mood of despondency has taken over the party. Its trademark of defiance and
arrogance against criticism and righteousness on all issues amidst clear
indications to the contrary has been missing in its reaction to the defeats.
Senior leader Tofael Ahmed seemed clearly at a loss to articulate any
encouraging words to explain the defeats. Frustrated, he said the AL’s
predicament is indeed one of being “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”.
He said had the AL won the elections, BNP would have cried that the elections
have been foul and now that it has lost, the BNP is not giving it any credit
for holding free and fair elections.
The
media that has been a strong backer of the ruling party and an equally harsh
critic of the BNP has expressed damning views of the ruling party for the
defeats. If their views could be paraphrased, these were those that the BNP
would have liked to express. A leading English daily newspaper has suddenly
changed its stance from being a net advocate of the ruling party to that of a
net critic. Individuals known as AL sympathizers have on talk shows and
newspaper columns blamed the arrogance of the ruling party for the debacles.
They seemed more frustrated and disappointed at the AL predicament and some
even mustered the courage to point fingers at the Prime Minister. There has
been a definite change in the media’s stance after the city corporation
elections. The media has concluded that the AL’s current predicament is
precarious not because of anything the BNP has done but because of the way the
AL led government has failed in almost all aspects of governance. The media
also underlined the fact that the AL’s fortunes are
slipping faster than it can recover before the fast approaching national
election. Unfortunately for the all issues that the it thought it had
successfully slipped under the carpet – Padma, Hallmark, Destiny, share market,
Hefazat, etc, etc – came back to haunt the AL in Barisal, Khulna, Rajshahi,
Sylhet and finally at Gazipur.
The
reality of politics in Bangladesh was factored into local elections and
blatantly visible in the GCC election in another way that the media generally
failed to note. The secular AL candidate had more men with beards (the
fundamentalists wear) around him than the BNP backed candidate in blatant
violation of the party’s secular commitment of not using Islam in politics.
Azmat in fact claimed Hefazat was supporting him! In contrast, no from the
party’s secular cultural front went to Gazipur who, had Shahabag movement not
occurred in our politics, would no doubt have been there for Azmat to help him
over the victory line. Sadly, the Shahabag youth movement was seen fragmented
into three groups gathering in small numbers crying foul against the BNP backed
candidate with no one listening! The joker in the pack, former President HM
Ershad may have played the best hand in GCC. After ensuring his party did
everything for the BNP backed candidate, he gave support for the Azmat hours
before the election. Everyone knows why. He did the proverbial act; killed the
snake but also saved the stick! One hopes for his sake, the ruling party does
not see it this way!
The
city corporation elections have however left the critical issue of the CTG that
is crucial to the political stability of the country, unresolved. However, the
manner in which the elections were fought and the way the ruling party lost,
the moral victory over the CTG issue has been decidedly won by the BNP. The
country has moved closer to a consensus on CTG. The AL should now reflect on the defeats and discuss the issue with the BNP for the sake of
the country. A BNP on an upswing now cannot now be forced into submission for
the AL would now has its hands considerably weakened by the 5-0 defeat handed
to it at the city corporation polls.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
Awami
League, election arithmetic and caretaker government
M.
Serajul Islam
The
Awami League is insisting that the election must be held under an interim
administration with Sheikh Hasina as the Prime Minister. The BNP is adamant
that the national election must be held under ` the
non-party Caretaker Government system. The two parties are moving further and further
away on the issue of finding a way to reach an agreement on how to hold the
next general election where both can participate. Meanwhile, increasingly the
ability of the Awami League to agree to a national election under the CG system
is going out of its hands because of simple arithmetic of electioneering. The
numbers are adding up against it to make it difficult if not impossible for the
Awami League to agree to hold the next national election in a manner that would
allow the BNP to participate.
Take
for instance, the recent press conference of the 9 women Directors of Grameen
Bank held after the news came out in the media that the Government was about to
break up the Noble Prize winning institution into a number of parts and bring it under its absolute control.
Obviously these democratically elected Directors with links at the grass roots
were upset over the Government’s attempt to break the GB. They expressed
determination that they would not allow it. One of the Directors reminded the
government that the GB has 8.4 million women and they all have families. They
warned the Government that unless it gave up its decision to “grab” the GB, the
ruling party would have the 8.4 million subscribers of GB and their families
against them in the forthcoming national election.
That
number is substantial and enough to make a major impact against the ruling
party. However, the GB subscribers and their families are not the only people
unhappy with the ruling party. The supporters of the Hefazatul Islam are
another large chunk of voters who are unhappy with the Awami League. Although
no exact number is available as to how many Hefazat supporters are voters, the
number of people they brought to Dhaka on April 4 and May 5 was huge. In fact,
some newspapers reported that for their April 4th gathering in
Dhaka, the Hefazat had brought 1.5
million people and that too after the Government had made all out efforts to
stop Hefazat supporters from coming to Dhaka. The Government had stopped buses,
trains and launches to discourage the Hefazat supporters from gathering in
Dhaka.
The
Hefazat supporters are Islamic fundamentalists. Unlike the Jamat however, the
Hefazatul Islam is not a political party or involved in politics. In the past,
many of them have never bothered to vote in any election, be it national or local.
That situation has changed. The non-political Hefazatul Islam has been brought to the centre of national
politics, first, by the anti-Islamic
activities of some of the youth leaders of the Shahabag movement and later by the way they were treated by the
law enforcing forces to disperse them from the Shapla Chattar on the night of May 5-6. The Hefazat believes that a large
number of their supporters were killed by the law enforcing agencies at the
Shapla Chattar on the night of May 5-6. The Government has strongly denied the
accusation on the number. A government press note issued many days after the
incident stated that some Hefazat men were killed that night.
Although the Government has won the first
round by successfully dispersing the serious threat that the Hefazat had posed
to it leading to May 5-6, the problem has not been resolved at all to the benefit
of the ruling party. The action by the
law enforcing agencies has transformed a huge section of the people into anti
Awami League voters, people who would normally not have voted for they do not
support any of the mainstream parties. There is little doubt now that in the
next national election, these Hefazat supporters would not just vote but vote
with a vengeance against the ruling party. They showed this mood in the 4 city
corporation elections which the ruling party supported candidates lost to the
BNP supported candidates by big margins. The ruling party, setting its
commitment to secularism and use of religion in politics by the way side,
openly and unabashedly flirted with not just Hefazat but also fundamentalist
forces to secure votes. ( In the ensuing Gazipur election, the ruling party
backed candidate “proudly” moved around
with bearded and capped supporters to give voters the impression that the
Hefazat and Islamic fundamentalists elements were backing him!!)
Earlier,
the ruling party messed up its electoral fortunes by the insensitive way it
handled the share market scam. After it came to power, it allowed the share
market to be a place for the fortune hunters. Huge number of people of all
political affiliations, many with no political affiliations, was drawn to the
share market. Among these, a good number was the projonmo who had also been
instrumental in bringing the AL to office lured by the party’s promise of
change. They all became victims of the
share market scam through which few people with close connection to the ruling
party skimmed thousands of crores of Takas and not one of them has either been
apprehended or punished. The government,
instead of sympathizing with the victims, many of whom lost all the money they
had, was totally insensitive to their predicament and senior Minister made fun
of their plight! According to political analysts, the number of victims of the
share market scam and their families would be in many millions who would have
every reason to be upset with the ruling party.
The
combined votes of the Grameen Bank, the Hefazatul Islam and the share market
scam victims will be, even by conservative estimate, huge. The AL for reasons that only it can explain
has given this huge number of voters every reason to vote against it in a
national election. If the votes of these groups are added to those of the BNP in
case it participates in the national election, then by the simplest of
arithmetic the chances of the ruling party of returning to power would vanish.
That is not the end of the AL’s concerns. Stacked against it in the next
general election would also be other damaging issues of interest to voters.
These issue are the corruption over the Padma Bridge; the Hallmark and the
Destiny scams through which few politically connected individuals have
defrauded public financial institutions of thousands of crores of Takas;
corruption by the political leadership; unacceptable law and order condition
and hike of price of essentials in the country and misdeeds of the affiliated
organizations of the ruling party led by its student wing, the Chatra League.
Thus
the AL, because of the factors noted, has little incentive to accede to the
demand of the BNP for the Caretaker Government. Unfortunately for the ruling party, these factors are not all to worry it and
discourage it to hold a national
election with the BNP in the race. In the last five years, it has treated the
BNP leaders in a manner no opposition party has been treated in the history of
Bangladesh. It is not that they have been harassed and persecuted on the
flimsiest of grounds; some of the BNP leaders have been placed on remand and
subjected to torture. In fact, many of BNP leaders have been treated like
common criminals. The AL thus cannot even think of the consequences it would
face if it lost power to the BNP.
Nevertheless,
there has to be a way out because the AL cannot hope to hold an election
without the BNP to return to power and remain there. The forces against it
would be too formidable to suppress by use of force. Again, arithmetic will
stand against the AL’s chances of succeeding in remaining in power should it
decide to go ahead with next national election by keeping the BNP/Jamat out of
the race. It is true that public reaction was against the attempt by the BNP
and the Jamat to bring down the present AL led government by hartal and
violence. The people did not support that because they felt that they had elected
the AL to power and therefore they saw no reason to force it out of power
before it completed its term.
That
public support will be gone if the AL came back to power without the
participation of the BNP/Jamat and the two started a movement to dislodge that
AL Government by force as they certainly will. Public reaction to such a
movement will not be negative because that government will not have legitimacy.
Nevertheless, if politics goes to that extent, the nation will suffer
consequences and the country will be pushed back many steps in its efforts to
transform the country from low income to middle income, something that the AL
has promised the nation.
It is not simple arithmetic that should bring
the AL to its senses; it should also see the way its own supporters in the
media and the civil society are trying their best to bring it to face reality. A
leading daily generally critical of the opposition recently conducted an
opinion poll that showed 90% of the people supported the CG system. A columnist known for his pro-ruling party
sympathies has recently written an article in the same paper in which he has suggested
strongly to the AL to accept the CG system stating that it will need the system
badly when it faces the BNP as the ruling party in the election after the next
one that he thinks will be won by the BNP. An English daily that has consistently
flogged the opposition has written an unbelievably hard hitting editorial
column about the AL that it should read to get a hold on reality.
No
election is won or lost till the final results are announced. Thus despite the
reality of arithmetic that points against an AL win in an “inclusive” national
election, the ruling party can still make a fight if it reads the writings on
the wall and takes lessons from its mistakes in the months remaining till the
national election. The AL should consider that the BNP has done little meantime
to advance towards a winning position and the chances that arithmetic is giving it of winning are all due to the
mistakes it has made and continuing to make. Towards giving it a chance of
winning the next election, the first step that the AL should take is to start
talking with the BNP so that it can give the country a national election that
would allow all parties to participate. This is not just a democratic move that
the AL should make if of course it wants the people to believe its loudly
touted democratic credentials; it is also a responsibility from which it cannot
shy away because this is the responsibility that it owes to itself by being in
the government.
If
the AL moves towards ensuring an “inclusive” national election, then the
compulsions of arithmetic that currently appear to be stacked against it for
the next general election could level out substantially. The fear and suspicion
in the public mind that the AL may be conspiring to return to power without having
to fight the BNP will vanish and the
people would then be able to make a choice between the two mainstream parties. Anything
to the contrary would push the country towards civil strife that many fears
could even turn into a civil war and the consequences of that would be dangerous
and disastrous for all. If the country deteriorates towards that, the
responsibility for pushing the country there would rest on the shoulder of the
ruling party for restricting the people’s choice in exercising their sovereign
right to vote and elect their government of choice.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
On
two-nation theory and Bangladesh
M.
Serajul Islam
In
the first week and a little more of the Shahabag movement, when the youth led
uprising was promising to take the country to a new and better level of well
being, there was enthusiasm in some quarters in Bangladesh and in interested
circles in next door India that Bangladesh was finally putting its act together
towards becoming a truly secular country. Those active in these discussions in
Bangladesh are the leaders of the country’s secular movement who believe and
want the rest of the country to believe that the main reason why so many lives
were sacrificed in 1971 was to establish Bangladesh as a secular country where religion
(meaning Islam, the religion of the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis) will
have no role in public affairs and politics.
The
activists of the secular movement in Bangladesh argue that the two-nation
theory that used religion to create in
1947 a Hindu majority India and a Muslim majority Pakistan (of which Bangladesh
was a part) has been rejected in 1971 when
Bangladesh emerged as an independent country based on secularism. The leaders
of the secular movement in Bangladesh, who were unhappy that even after the 15th
amendment the country still had both the provisions of Islam as a state
religion and “Bismillah” in the Constitution, were excited about Shahabag. The
saw an opportunity in the Shahabag movement for their secular agenda,
particularly in forcing the government to delete the Islamic provisions from
the Constitution. They described Shahabag as the beginning of the new
liberation war to finish the unfinished 1971 war of liberation whose objective is
to reject the two-nation theory and establish Bangladesh as a sovereign country
where religion would have no significance in the lives of its people except in
private.
This
view that 1971 war of liberation of Bangladesh rejected the two nation theory has
been supported whole heartedly in India because it never accepted the 1947
partition of India. It was therefore no
surprise that India was the only country to give the Shahabag Movement its
blessings. Breaking protocol and diplomatic niceties, the Indian Foreign
Minister Salman Khurshid personally visited Shahabag while on an official visit
to Bangladesh and gave it his Government’s
blessings at a time when the movement had started to become overtly pro-ruling party and equally overtly
anti-BNP. The Indian President on his state visit to Dhaka early in March said
his heart was with the Shahabag youth and he felt sad he was unable to be there
personally.
The
move from Shahabag to fight and win the second liberation war to complete the
unfinished task of 1971 for establishing secularism so that it is not tarnished
by Islam faltered when the anti-Islamic blogs became public knowledge resulting
in widespread public anger. The result was the Hefazat phenomenon where many
times more people than the Shahabag youth could muster gathered in Shapla Chattar,
condemning and demanding hanging of the anti-Islam bloggers. The way the authorities
tackled the Hefazat phenomenon is still not clear with the government’s claim
that it fizzled without serious bloodshed contested by the opposition that
claimed hundreds of Hefazat men were massacred to drive them away from Dhaka.
Nevertheless, the Hefazat reaction to the Shahabag underscored the fact that
those who had thought that Islam could be contained in the four walls of
people’s homes did not understand the extent and depth of people’ attachment to
the religion in Bangladesh.
The
government was the first to fear the Hefazat uprising after it had seen the
huge gathering of Hefazat followers in Dhaka on April 4th..
Government Ministers held meetings with Hefazat and assured them that the
government would consider their 13 point demands although there were elements
in the demands that the ruling party with its secular stance on politics should
have rejected outright. Although there was widespread concern and fear in the
minds of the majority of the people of the country to see so many Islamic fundamentalist
gather in Dhaka, there was nevertheless also a feeling among them that the
youth in Shahabag had gone too far with their attitude towards Islam. The
people in general did not believe that the youth in Shahabag were either
atheist or against Islam but nevertheless they felt that the Shahabag youth did
not show Islam the respect that they expected. They suspected that behind the
youth leaders in Shahabag, there were a few well know “secularists” who tried
to use the movement that otherwise had so much potential to serve their agenda
of secularism against Islam.
The
debate between secularism versus Islam has been played out between the Shahabag
Movement and the Hefazat phenomenon in a manner that should give the nation its
sense of direction for the future. The people have cast their support
unequivocally in favour of Islam by the way the Shahabag movement withered
away. Nevertheless, it is not fundamentalist Islam that the people have
supported. They have supported the Islam that has been tampered by many liberal
influences including Sufism, language, culture and tradition. In fact, while
the debate raged in the country between secularism and Islam, the majority of
the Muslims of the country did not for a moment lend their support for those who tried to use the
opportunities offered to them by the anti-islam bloggers for the fundamentalist brand of Islam. They clearly
rejected Jamat and Hefazat for the politics they represented although they had
their moral support for the Hefazat’s demand for punishment for those who
humiliated Islam.
The
people did in no way reject secularism either but not the secularism preached
by those who do not see any place for Islam in public life of a secular
Bangladesh. The people supported the secularism envisioned by Bangabandhu
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who had many times, both before emergence of Bangladesh
and afterwards, said publicly that our national identity is in being both a
“Mussalman” and a “Bangali.” He saw no conflict between the two entities common in the lives
of 90% of the people of Bangladesh for a secular Bangladesh where all religions
would have equal rights. The secular
movement leaders unfortunately saw a fundamental conflict between the two and
tried to use the Shahabag Movement to fight a new liberation war for a secular
Bangladesh to subordinate the “Mussalman” entity from all public and political
matters. Ironically, it is the failure of the Shahabag Movement that has
established the “Mussalman” element of the national identity of a Bangladeshi in
full strength.
The
developments in Bangladesh’s politics
since February have unmistakably and indisputably established the “Mussalman”
element of the national identity of its people that has forcefully
destroyed the notion that the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 has
rejected the two-nation theory. Pakistan gave the people of Bangladesh space
for fulfillment of the religious element of their national identity but none
for fulfillment of their linguistic, cultural and liberal identities that Bangabandhu
had aptly described as the “Bangali” identities. In 1971, the people of Bangladesh
achieved these elements to complete the process of achieving their national
identity of being both a “Mussalman” (1947) and “Bangali” (1971). It is time
the secularists take lessons so that Bangladesh can return from the abyss to
which they had pushed the country by their attempt to undermine the Islamic
basis of the country’s national identity.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador
