Consensus or confrontation: Which way we go?

One common Bangla proverb-turned-cliché "the party is greater than the individual and the country is greater than the party" is often forgotten, regrettably, or ignored for personal and partisan convenience or in vengeance, at the peril of the country's interests. Here, hardly anyone would apparently think that national consensus is essential on matters of crucial importance to a country that owed its independence to a rare manifestation of unity and unanimity. This display of consensus vanished just on the wake of liberation. You could never find it when you needed it in more strengthened, consolidated and extended forms. Year after year, you see confrontation, opposition for the sake of opposition. Concept of consensus gives way to politics of confrontation. Politics of development, oft-repeated jargon of whatever power-that-be, is taken over by violent advance of politics of destruction. Who is responsible, the government or the opposition, of the day or of yesterday? The blame game could go on forever. The leaders and pseudo leaders are endowed with great aptitude in that. But, who is paying the price? None but the helpless millions. At some point, however, this vicious cycle has to be broken. For the prevailing situation, the ruling side and those outside the power structure are equally responsible and answerable. Unless they give up their quarrel on this or other pretext, and show respect for the wishes and aspirations of the people, the leaders and politicians should not expect any honourable place, despite the eulogy and euphoria of the sycophants, in the pages of history.

The parties have the right to pursue own agenda and expose each other's omissions and commissions. While the party in power would govern in their own way and try to regain power through a fresh mandate, the opposition would naturally seek their return to power, provided both act legally and in popularly acceptable manners. Unfortunately, the main parties are engaged in an endless and cynical game of seeking political mileage out of the people's miseries and misfortune. People are wary of politics, while being apprehensive of the country's future. They blame the politicians' psyche, and question the leaders' commitment and capability, quite naturally. They are watching the unnecessary dispute over Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference with great concern, and are holding both parties responsible for damaging the country's image.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Concept of consensus and international best practices

Consensus is simply a general agreement among the members of a group, while national consensus stands for agreement among various political forces of the country representing all sections of the people on certain issues and proposed course of action that enables its unopposed implementation. Consensus thus involves active or passive support of all parties concerned, and requires general consent. Consensus in a society presupposes harmony of thought and action, absence of conflict and controversy, tolerance of and respect for others' views, change of attitude and mindset, compromise on debatable issues and at times sacrifice of cherished ideas. Consensus is impossible without knowledge, values and vision. Lack of consensus leads to anarchy, hostility and destruction.

It is often difficult to reach consensus on core political issues due to different ideological points of view and inter-party rivalry, although some consensual opinion may exist. It becomes incumbent upon the government to emphasise on common grounds in foreign policy, defence and economic agenda to build up national consensus, and then it is obligatory on the opposition to respond. To achieve consensus it is essential to tolerate others' views and accommodate minor differences of opinion. There are ample examples of attaining national goals and objectives through overall national consensus. Consensus imbibes patriotism and enhances national capacity. If a nation can spontaneously stand united against the enemy at times of external aggression, there is hardly any reason why it cannot show the same amount of unity and resolution when called upon to fight poverty, the enemy number one.

Consensus exists "when expectation about the bahaviour of others is realistic because the others will usually accept these expectations as valid for themselves, even without any explicit agreement", as German philosopher Max Weber puts it. Harmony is not end of ideology, basic values and goals, but there are risks of abuse, lest it becomes an instrument for suppressing dissent. Marxists used this as ideological concept to perpetuate class rule by hiding the extent of contradictions within the society. However, there is no room for Machiavellianism in national consensus process.

In postwar Britain and other western countries, consensus came up as cross-party agreement on policy objectives and strategic approaches. Consensus was resorted to in political system to minimise policy options and make them "administratively practicable, economically affordable and politically acceptable". Conflict among the parties was reduced and confined only to some highly charged issues. Some best practices of national consensus are embedded in Scandinavian political systems. Recovery of the Swedish economy from the widespread European recession of early 1990s was made possible only through consensus. Sweden was economically hard-pressed as they earlier created a welfare state allowing maximum social benefits. Conservative Party in power had to severely curtail these benefits. They did not do it unilaterally, but sat with other parties, discussed future course of action to retrieve the economy and concluded agreements with them on proposed cut-backs. Social Democratic Party that built up the welfare regime through painstaking efforts over some seventy years did not boycott the talks to agitate in the streets. The party convinced the people about need to sacrifice some benefits and signed the agreement. Sweden came out the economic crisis in about two years.

Way forward: Consensus in favour of consensus

Bangladesh's track record on the way to consensus has nothing to be proud of. Our political history is beset with series of confrontations manifested in mutual attrition, altercations, acrimony, animosity, and assault; disagreement and defiance; insinuation and insult; personal vendetta and vilification; all along a ceaseless war of words with bad taste. Difference of opinion is managed to make it irreconcilable. Only during movement against autocracy in late 1980s there was some identical, though not united, action. Another encouraging development was return to parliamentary democracy. Otherwise, there is no common position on critical national concerns, like diversion of river waters across the border, peace in hill tracts, ever-growing violence and criminality; and no agreement on socio-economic matters, corruption and lack of accountability and transparency. No loud voice is heard against parliamentary absenteeism and hartal though the costs are enormous. Sometimes, political confrontation needed international intervention, and diplomats meddled in our internal affairs, without much success. Lessons learnt: one, consensus must be reached through a home-grown process, to be honourable and sustainable; and two, appropriate mechanism and methodology must be evolved to resolve conflicts and bring about consensus on critical national issues. The foremost step is "consensus in favour of consensus". Sounds impossible! Not really, it is just difficult.

Both the government of the day and the government in waiting alongwith other actors in the field of politics and development including academia, intelligentsia, media and civil society might think seriously to take up subjects like: reduction of poverty and inequality; containment of terrorism and social and political violence; improvement of law and order; end of prolonged boycott of parliament sessions; end of hartal; end of political victimisation; effective utilisation of natural resources; conservation of environment; gender mainstreaming; local governance and decenralisation; consultative process for annual budget, development planning and aid dependency; depoliticisation of the public services and education system; challenges of globalisation; attainment of millennium development goals and international development targets. Let there be national policy and strategy formulated through appropriately constituted national consultative committees for each of the important sectors on the basis of broad national consensus, so that these need not be changed with every change of government.

Thirty-plus years is a considerable period of time in a nation's history. Many countries have graduated from under-developed to developed stage within such time or less. Our socio-economic indicators still lag behind South Asian averages, shamefully. Assuming state power is not the end in itself for any party with a vision. Governance is no longer confined to the traditional government. It is all pervasive. Let us settle old controversies and not create new ones, if we really desire to live with self-respect.

Aziz Rahman, a former Additional Secretary, is Executive Director, Centre for Governance Studies.