Political confrontation on the rise

Mahatma Gandhi once said in the wake of widespread communal riots in India that 'an eye for an eye leaves the world blind'. One also knows that two wrongs don't make anything right. Tolerance and mutual respect being the bedrock of any democracy, and the democratic governance being a collaborative effort of the treasury and the opposition, the legitimised existence of the treasury largely depends on the complacent survival of the opposition. If one does manage to survive without the other, it can't be termed as a democracy. We did pass through such a vacuous 'autocratic political ambience' for a good part of our fhistory.

Having returned to the Parliament after a long hiatus, the opposition chief whip Abdus Shaheed (AL) informed during a post-budget discussion on June 23 that, of the Taka one crore allotted for development works in his area, nothing was channeled through his party. 'Money was slated to be spent by MPs from BNP and Jamaat only', he bemoaned in anguish.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The almost constant boycott of the parliament by the opposition is another manifestation of this 'they did the same syndrome'. So is the issue of hartal, which both the parties despise while in power, but resort to using as a potent political weapon once their status gets relegated to the opposition. The AL leader, Sheikh Hasina, even made a promise to the nation not to use hartal as a means to press ahead political demands while in opposition. Yet, like the proverbial 'promises are made to break', her party did not hesitate to call for a day of hartal that coincided with the arrival of two important foreign dignitaries -- Indonesian President and US Secretary of State -- to the nation's capital.

The treatment of the opposition by the ruling party has a similarly familiar ring, which need not be elaborated. What, however, must not bypass our scrutiny relates to the important issue of the formation of various parliamentary committees. The committees for the 7th parliament were formed belatedly, but no opposition lawmakers chair any of those committees.

The AL too followed the similar trend. Given that the AL broke a decade old tradition by not giving the committee chairmanship to any cabinet minister, the BNP should have improved upon that by allowing some of the opposition lawmakers to chair a few of the committees-- as a beginning-- to break away from the taboo.

At some point in the past, there also emerged a consensus among the leadership that the post of the deputy speaker of the house would be given, as a standard procedure, to the opposition. This too did not happen because 'they did not do it'. Then again, look at the remarks gushed out of the opposition's mouths about the performance of the government. These spiteful and 'unbecoming' comments reflect a distorted reality, implying that nothing that the government did or does deserves commendation.

At times, the venom of such intolerant mud-slinging spills over our national boundary as leaders from the opposition try to complain to foreign governments of the faults and flaws of the regime in power, often at the cost of truncating the image of the nation.

One also observes that constant accusations of vote rigging by the winning party turned Bangladesh as the only country in the world to have inscribed a constitutional provision for holding general elections under a neutral caretaker government-- to be headed by an ex-member of the judiciary. The measure was applauded at home and abroad, but this sense of bravado did not preclude the reality that the electoral system of the nation remains as yet a flawed one, hence prone to more dangers. As well, the scramble and politicking to choose a chief justice to fit the election requirements have since become an obsessive mission for both the parties.

The readers may also be reminded of the removal of Sheikh Mujib's pictures from all government installations upon BNP's assumption of political power, as well as the same treatment meted out to Zia's pictures upon AL's coming to power in 1996. The change of government in this 'land of make believe' ushers in an era of uncertainties that smacks of sweeping revolutionary upheavals. For, one is not sure of what might change all and sundry upon the change of a political regime. Nor can one gauge the proclivity of the regime with respect to its chosen policy directions in domestic and international issues. This is a scaring (and perplexing too) spectacle for investors and innocent observers alike.

The situation can be summed up as one utterly unstable and downright confusing. It shows little respect to fundamental national interests and ethos; to the mores and ideologies, upon which was built the very foundation of our nation. Historically, we have forgotten that of the 30 or so distinct nationalities of this subcontinent, we are the most fortunate one to have carved out a sovereign existence for ourselves. We're also oblivious to the facts that we own a chunk of geography that we proudly call our home; a flag that we can salute and venerate with unbridled patriotic fervour; and a map that encompasses in it the race and ethnicity of the same linguistic stock. Aren't our politicians culpable of dishonouring such 'givens' that came through shedding of blood and sweat by our national heroes?

Interestingly, like the wild fire that engulfs everything around, this culture of intolerance is also a pervasive phenomenon within the parties themselves. The parties thus are deprived of democratic practices within, and the politicians are viewed by the mass with dread, not deference. The tool of politics is wrapped in a peculiar and dangerous package comprising money and muscle, not merit and motivation.

The UK does not have a written constitution, yet the 'politically correct' behaviour of her public personalities grant them more authority to hold the other organs of the government (executive and judiciary) accountable than does the lawful mandate offered to them by the voters.

In the US, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives act in unison on all matters deemed as conducive to national interests. As a new democracy, we may not emulate the developed world as our role model -- given that the underlying fabrics are different in their cases -- but the rudimentary things that inspire hopes among people are very much existent in our neighbourhood too. The resilience of the Indian democracy stems from the broader commitments of her politicians to everything construed as 'common good for the nation'. In every democracy, opposition is challenged, not choked to death as we do.

Though not unbeknownst of happenings around us in the global village, we still choose to remain intolerant of, and opposed to, anything that doesn't fit our own psychological mould. That is why upon assuming office, the first thing we care most to do as a government is change every responsible official from their incumbency. We're scared lest their loyalty is glued to the past regime. This too is justified on the familiar rationale of 'they did the same to us'.

Can we not begin the process of doing things in the right way from today, so that no one dares to cite our political craftsmanship as a precedent to hurt us tomorrow? We surely can, provided we follow an old adage that says, 'distance is nothing: it is the first step that proves difficult'.

M. Shahidul Islam is an author and researcher.