A non-scientific survey

Ratings of BNP and AL rule (non-scientific telephone responses)

When I read the published versions of my articles, not as the author but as any other reader, I am occasionally tempted to brand the writer as a partisan columnist. However, instead of calling myself an AL supporter I would prefer to be categorized as an anti-establishment writer. That's why my columns consistently castigate BNP politicians and their activities. Unfortunately, I wasn't a columnist when AL was in power.

Some of my readers wish that I were a more balanced writer. Objective journalism is not about balanced writing; it is about detailing the facts and letting the implications stand for themselves. Journalism, for its part, is inextricably tied to freedom of speech. But that does not mean that speech must be judicious. Editors and columnists are free to write what they think is the truth, and the readers will decide not only whether the truth has been spoken, but also whether a particular journalist has a penchant for the truth.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

My "No Nonsense" column is not intended to be a paradigm of balanced writing. Instead, my sole aspiration is to write stories backed by whatever evidence is available. Balanced stories often intertwine simple truths, and crafty writers can make biased stories appear balanced. At the least, a balanced story can obfuscate the import of a story just as much as a biased equivalent.

In response to another issue, I must admit that knowing who reads what one writes, as well as feedbacks from friends and foes, is also vital for keeping the interest of writing alive. An estimated 7%, or approximately 9.8 million people (based on a survey of 2,252 respondents conducted from December 2004 - January 2005) read newspapers regularly.

Assuming that the circulation of the English dailies totals 75,000 with 3 readers per household, the total number of English newspaper readers stands at approximately 225,000, or a meager 0.23% of all daily newspaper readers. If we were more concerned with the quantity, as opposed to the quality, of our readers these numbers would certainly put a dent in our enthusiasm for writing op-ed columns every week!

There is no disappointment if BNP politicians do not read my columns. Believe it or not, my articles aren't purposely targeted for BNP politicians; they are also intended for their AL counterparts. One may not expect corrupt politicians and public servants to read about anti-corruption measures. What could be the rationale for HIV positive patients to read literature on safe sex?

The AL politicians may not indulge in blissful delight because of my criticism of BNP. Win or lose in the upcoming election, they must not countenance the thought of maintaining the same old bellicose attitude towards political opponents; instead they must strive to redeem themselves with a new image to undo and unmake all those misdemeanors instituted by BNP alliance rulers.

Public servants who are directly or indirectly connected to election related activities must recognize that a free and fair election is of the greatest benefit for their children and the future generation. The children should be given the opportunity to grow up in a democratic and secular society free of corruption, politicization, and human ignominy. Manipulating the election outcome in favor of thieves, thugs, and incompetent and illiterate fools will only benefit the families of these people at the expense of the rest of the children of the country.

In terms of the degree of corruption, politicization, minority repression, persecution of journalists, denigration of the spirit of secularism and the overall violations of the rule of law, BNP politicians have no peers. The AL politicians have yet to catch up with their adversaries on these issues; possibly because some of these issues (such a secular society and protecting minorities) are the basic premises on which the party was founded, or possibly because AL simply was not in power for long enough.

Last week, I called a few distinguished people in Dhaka and asked for their impressions on a few crucial and highly talked about issues. Prior to asking for their responses, I ardently requested their dispassionate assessment of the issues involved.

The survey responses in the table are based on a scale of 0 (best) to 10 (worst). For example, scores on politicization between BNP's first and second term jumped from an average score of 2.5 to 9.0. The only plausible explanation for such a jump is their desire to monopolize and perpetuate power, and thus evade trial for alleged criminal violations of all kinds. This interpretation is also consistent with the 9.5 score in election-rigging plots and the 8.5 score in harassing of opposition parties.

In every category except law and order, the BNP-Jamaat alliance has taken the country to a state of kleptocracy (rule by thieves and thugs). The unprecedented rise in repressing ethnic and religious minorities (0.0 to 7.0) and human rights violations (0.

0 to 7.5) may have been largely due to Jamaat's joining the BNP alliance in 2001. The major improvement in law and order (protecting life and properties from hooligans) didn't come without cost -- it was achieved at the expense of the much cherished "rule of law." The alliance rulers are discredited as being the worst human rights violators (for example, extra judicial cross-fire killings by Rab) in Bangladesh since the country became independent.

The survey is certainly non-scientific. So, before agreeing or disagreeing with my arguments, why not record your own score (impassively) in each category without looking at the table, and check how close your scores are, to judge if the scores in the table represent fiction or reality.

Dr Abdullah A Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.