The benefits of dialogue

Dialogue between the government and the opposition can now be on a level playing field.

Time and again, this is precisely the path chosen by both the BNP and the AL. This short-sightedness, this uncanny ability to make the politically tin-eared decision, is to my mind almost as disconcerting as the parties' apparent indifference to the national interest and the will of the public.

Right now, I am thinking of the AL refusal to sit down with the government for talks on how to deal with the threat of terrorism that has risen to the fore in the past few weeks.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It seems to me that the offer for dialogue is a golden opportunity for the AL to hold the government's feet to the fire for its actions and inaction that have led us to this pass, and to articulate its own vision of the future, including it vision for how to deal with the extremists, for the entire country to hear.

The opposition has been doing well in recent months, partly due to the government's spectacular mishandling of the terrorist threat as well as its continuing under-performance in almost all other aspects of governance, and partly due to the opposition's own initiatives. Now it has been handed the opportunity to press its advantage and consolidate its gains.

The November 22 unveiling of a common minimum programme at the successful grand rally in Dhaka (that the government shamefully did everything in its power to thwart) was a good first step.

One of the principal criticisms of the opposition had been that it had not articulated how a 14-party alliance government would be different from the current one. Now the opposition has put forth a positive agenda that can serve as a basis for its campaign to convince the country that it is a credible alternative. The next step needs to be to add capacity -- to bring in some new faces -- to convince the country that it has the personnel to be able to effectuate its ambitious plans.

But right now, the main concern for the people is the security situation. The big debate right now is whether or not the opposition should sit down with the government in an effort to get to the bottom of this crisis.

I am of the opinion that the opposition should agree to talks, if for no other reason, than to bring the facts of the current crisis and its vision for how to resolve the crisis before the public. In times of national crisis a little statesmanship goes a long way. Such a decision would have a good effect on the morale of the nation, which is understandably quite low at present. The country is tense and apprehensive and any steps that can be taken that would lift public confidence are to be welcomed.

The talks may not elicit anything meaningful in terms of changing government policy, as the opposition claims. The opposition has made the point that the government, up to and including the prime minister, to this day continues to deny the now well-substantiated links between the terrorists and elements within the government, and instead, in the face of all available evidence and common sense, continues to implicate the AL.

Given this kind of backdrop, there is a good chance that the government will continue on its current path regardless of what is brought up at the dialogue. It is no secret what needs to be done to get to the bottom of this crisis and the government appears to have little inclination to take the necessary steps.

However, it seems to me that the AL could quite easily turn talks with the government to its advantage, which, while it might not prompt the government to take the corrective action needed, would nevertheless not be without attendant benefits, both for the country and for the opposition.

In my opinion, it should be quite possible to structure the talks in such a way that the public's involvement and engagement with the dialogue could be maximized, and at the same time the opposition's concerns about the process could be allayed.

The first point that I would like to suggest is for the dialogue to be carried live on television so that the public can see and hear everything. This dialogue would primarily be for the benefit of the public which wants to know what has been done to secure the nation against the terrorist threat and what steps are planned for the future. Televising the dialogue so that deliberations are held in front of the public would do more to restore much needed public confidence than any other measure I can think of.

The second condition that I would like to suggest would be that the dialogue be moderated properly by an impartial third party, something that is missing in parliament.

The third condition that I think would make the process more meaningful would be if the results of the investigations so far were made public and available for scrutiny and if such scrutiny were part of the dialogue.

Dialogue between the government and the opposition can now be on a level playing field. The opposition need not worry about the speaker of the house refusing to take their questions, not allotting them time to speak, or turning off their microphones.

In fact, such a dialogue would have the effect of permitting the leader of the opposition to speak to the prime minister on a more or less equal footing, which would do more to enhance her credibility in the eyes of the nation than a hundred speeches before the party faithful at rallies around the country.

The tactical advantage to be gained by the AL from agreeing to sit for talks when the BNP is on the defensive would be considerable. Platforms where the government and the opposition can sit as equals are few and far between in Bangladesh, and when the opportunity presents itself, the opposition, in my opinion, would be well served to grab it with both hands.

It seems to me that a public airing of the evidence implicating elements within the ruling alliance and of government inaction in pursuit of the extremists would do wonders for the opposition.

I do not think that the opposition can really lose the debate if it is held in front of the entire country. The allegations put forth by the government with respect to AL complicity and involvement are simply too preposterous to withstand close scrutiny.

If juxtaposed against the mounting evidence implicating elements within the government, it will be clear to the country who is telling the truth, and frankly this will damage the government's credibility even further. Sitting for dialogue will provide the opposition with a forum to highlight the many failures of the government when it comes to tackling the terror threat.

Perhaps nothing constructive will come of such a dialogue because the BNP seems incapable of being shamed into cleaning house. But such a dialogue would have the effect of unequivocally showing the country where the problem truly lies, and to the extent that it could cause a decisive shift in public opinion, may well force the government to take corrective measures.

By refusing to sit for talks, the AL not only continues to be complicit in the public remaining in the dark as to where things stand, but it actually gives the government the opportunity to further muddy the waters. Ever eager to take the low road, our oleaginous law minister is already on record hinting that the AL refusal to sit for talks will deepen suspicions of its links to the terrorists.

Sitting down for talks with the government will, at the very least, provide a valuable service to the people of the country, who are desperate for information and to hear what plans our leaders have to address the crisis. And if the opposition succeeds in shifting public opinion, it may well succeed in forcing the government's hand when it comes to taking sterner action against the extremists.

Either way, it is definitely worth a shot.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.