Marriage of convenience or true love?

Many BNP voters profess to abhor the Jamaat, but firmly believe that the political landscape is so treacherous that the BNP has no option other than to hold its nose and team up with the Jamaat if it wishes to either come to or retain power.

These voters believe that joining hands with the Jamaat is a necessary evil and unavoidable if the greater evil of an Awami League government is to be kept at bay, and comfort themselves with the thought that the BNP does not sign on to the Jamaat's agenda and that the Jamaat, while able to provide the margin of victory to the BNP, is not itself strong enough to constitute any kind of threat or to advance its agenda in any way.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In other words, the alliance between the two parties is a calculated risk with considerable up-side and very little down-side for the BNP. It is a little ironic that this defence of the BNP's alliance with Jamaat depends on approval of the party acting in what its ostensible defenders concede is essentially a hypocritical and nakedly political manner.

However, as disquieting as that thought might be, the astonishing thing is that, for possibly the majority of the country, this understanding of the relationship is actually the most acceptable spin that can be put on it, though I would suggest that it is rarely a good sign when hypocrisy and cynicism is the best defence one can muster for one's actions.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the alliance between the BNP and the Jamaat is nothing more than a marriage of convenience is called into question by the continued and seemingly disproportionate deference shown by the BNP to its alliance partner.

Then there are those who suggest that there is actually a considerable similarity of opinion and world-view between the Jamaat and the BNP, and that theirs is a true marriage of the minds. This point of view suggests that there is enough commonality of purpose and philosophy between the two parties that their alliance is not mere naked political maneuvering, but actually dictated by common sense and common goals.

But, either way, whether it is out of conviction or cynicism, there is no denying the fact that the BNP has permitted the Jamaat extraordinary leeway in the past five years, and that the influence of the Jamaat over the alliance government and affairs of state has been far out of proportion to that which its numerical strength would suggest it is entitled to.

Perhaps this is a tacit admission on the part of the BNP of the crucial role played by Jamaat in the last election and recognition of the fact that it will need the Jamaat again in the upcoming elections, or perhaps the BNP is merely using the Jamaat as cover for enacting policies that it itself supports but does not have the courage of its convictions to fully stand behind.

The two principal decisions taken by the BNP in recent weeks demonstrate this tenuous balance of power. The first decision was the one to reach out to ex-president HM Ershad, a move that the Jamaat is on record as being opposed to. But the decision to bring Ershad into the alliance can be juxtaposed with this week's decision to grant degree status to the Qawmi madrasas equivalent to a Masters degree from an accredited university.

Was the decision with respect to the Qawmi madrasas intended to soften the blow of inducting Ershad into the alliance and should it be seen merely as a concession to the Jamaat to keep them happy and to ensure that they do not defect with their vote bank, or was the decision one that the current administration feels is defensible public policy?

I do not know the answer, and perhaps it is a little of both. In the final analysis, though, I am not even sure that it makes much of a difference when politicians enact poor (or good for that matter) public policy, whether their principal motive is electoral gain or conviction. The end result is pretty much the same in either case.

What is unarguable is that the past five years of BNP-Jamaat rule have seen the country move very perceptibly right-ward towards the narrow interpretation of Islam that is openly espoused by the Jamaat and perhaps covertly by influential parties in the BNP.

Many might argue that this is no bad thing and that this is the right direction for the country to be heading. I would disagree strongly which such a statement, but all are entitled to their opinion, and it is certainly a point of view.

However, for those who do think that it is a bad thing that the country seems to be marching steadily in the direction of intolerance and obscurantism, and believe that our political discourse (to say nothing of religious sensibilities) has been cheapened and demeaned by the politicization of Islam, I would suggest that now is a good time to re-examine the relationship between the BNP and the Jamaat.

If the direction the BNP has moved in the past five years is one that you are comfortable with, all well and good. If not, however, with the decision about electoral alliances and who the BNP should take sides with still very much up in the air, now might be a good time to make your voice heard.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.