The phantom of the 'third force'

However, not only that the ambassador not explain what he meant by the 'third force,' those that afforded him the platform, which he used to comment on things that one feels were perhaps outside the terms of reference of his duty as an ambassador, nor did our politicians, to whom the homilies served on us from time to time by their Excellencies sound like nectar in their ears, and react only when it suits their political interest, seek the ambassador's elucidation.

One is constrained to say that one notices a disquieting inclination of ambassadors accredited to our country to comment on matters that do not fall strictly within the charter of their duty, and which, instead of solving a problem, further compound the matter, giving rise to all sorts of speculations, and provide some with the scope to involve in political shenanigans, as this comment has done. And, more than the media, the politicians have been seen to flaunt the spectre of the 'third force'. This has been made an issue of conjectures, threats and persuasion. Thus it would be appropriate to dwell briefly on what actually this force might be.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

What was the ambassador actually referring to when he talked of the emergence of a third force? Did he mean anything / anyone outside the political stream in the country, or an unconstitutional arrangement, whose inevitability may be a fait accompli if the situation went beyond such a stage that threatened our national security and sovereignty? Or, was he hinting at the prospect of a second string political party, driven not by political motivations alone but with an agenda of their own, waiting in the wings till the two major political parties, worn-out by their political bickering and conflict lost their political locus because of nothing more worthwhile left for them to offer to the nation, create a vacuum that this force would not only be too willing but also very well prepared to fill in through the normal democratic process. That would not only legitimise their position but also expel the traditional political culture and introduce a totally new political set up in the country; being sanctified by popular verdict it would then be difficult to exorcise this force by any other means.

Interestingly, it is the possibility of the former, i.e. an unconstitutional arrangement, that most of the politicians and commentators have attached more importance to in their estimation of the 'third force.' And it is the military intervention that they have been alluding to in suggesting the possibility of an unconstitutional outcome.

But, why does the question of intervention of the 'third force,' of whatever hue, arise at all? Is this what we have to show for fifteen years of democracy in our country? Is it what the resilience democracy has acquired in Bangladesh? In a democracy there are bound to be differences and there are bound to be divergence of views on national issues, but that must neither impinge on the interest of the nation or our democratic process. The nation expects the political leaders to resolve differences through discourse and not through confrontation. But even worse than failing to resolve political issues is the frequent allusion to the possibilities of a military intervention in our politics, without bothering to reflect on the perils of such an eventuality. This not only shows our politicians in poor light, it also puts a question mark on our democracy by indirectly suggesting the 'third force' to be an alternative to the democratic set up, a means or a solution if you like, to come out of the political imbroglio.

In doing so they not only do a great disservice to our democracy and to the democratic institutions in the country, they also expose their failure as politicians in not strengthening the democratic institutions enough to withstand any extraneous or unconstitutional pressures or interferences. For our politicians to refer to the military as the possible third force carries a very wrong message to the people about the state of our politics. When does the prospect of a third force intervention in the political process arise? It is when the country is driven to the brink of an abyss. And this can only happen if the politicians fail to rise to the occasion and address the issues that might compel an unconstitutional arrangement.

Nobody is apolitical, not even those that wear uniform. Everyone, if he or she is a conscientious person, is interested in and concerned by the political developments in the country. And for some, while it is all right to remain concerned, it should be an anathema to get involved in it. Given the experience of our armed forces, majority of whose members have always been disinclined to getting involved in politics, it would hardly be disposed towards such a prospect now. While some analysts have suggested that their intervention might by compelled by outside inducement, it seems far fetched since the most important factor in politics, the people, has not been considered in this particular scenario. It is also not clear how an unconstitutional arrangement benefit the foreign motivator. Even an arrangement with a political façade back seat driven by the military, as some commentators have suggested, imply a covert role of the armed forces which may not appeal to the military themselves.

That we are going through very uncertain times there is no doubt. And there are apprehensions in the mind of the people about the outcome of events should elections not take place. And perhaps many are wondering about plausible alternatives that might stem the uncertainties. But national problems must be addressed only through the political instruments that are available. Unconstitutional arrangements are not the alternatives that one should even bother to contemplate. It does not behoove the politicians to even remotely suggest such a possibility. In fact that might appear to be indirectly invoking the intervention of supra political/ constitutional elements in the country's politics.

But if such a situation were to occur it would be the politicians only who will be held accountable by the people for letting it happen.

The author is Editor Defence &Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.