Cross Talk
A win-win dialogue
GEORGE Bernard Shaw said America and England were two countries separated by a common language. Since the chief advisor of the caretaker government addressed the nation on May 12, we happen to be in a similar fix. One side believes it has said enough, but the other side claims it has heard nothing. The chief advisor's speech was a communication dud. It failed to impress upon the politicians.
It may not be entirely his fault. The politicians in their heightened expectations didn't hear what they liked, their ears pricked up for something more than what was said. People often mishear things in their worked-up minds.
A pedestrian asked: "Did you?" in the movie Annie Hall, and the Woody Allen character thought he was asked if he was a Jew. The chief advisor said and the politicians heard. It's odd they couldn't make the connection.
Is it going to affect the outcome of the dialogue, which started yesterday? Probably yes, if the politicians bring to the table issues, which they couldn't find in the speech.
Some of the politicians, who appear on television talk shows, look buoyant with rustic pride that after sixteen months of neglect, the government had no choice but to knock on their doors. If they continue to push that ebullience and the government isn't ready to accommodate, the dialogue has a chance of splitting into two contentious monologues.
Of course, the government is interested in a national charter, a kind of memorandum of understanding with the political parties that politics left to the politicians it will not revert to the pre-1/11 situation.
Now that the election timeline is set, voter lists are almost done, delimitation of constituencies is ready and, above all, the government is keen to give the country back to the politicians, the dialogue should peter out differences, paving the road to a national consensus.
The question is if the government has enough bargaining power to create that consensus. Yes, the specter of a military takeover hovers in the air. Yes, the country will descend into further chaos if the dialogue doesn't work. But are these sufficient pressure points to leverage the active cooperation of the political leaders? Will the government arrest more politicians? Will it tighten up restrictions on political activities? Can it use any other form of arm twisting?
On the hindsight, the chief advisor's speech looks like a lost opportunity to prepare the ground for an effective dialogue. It could have opened the clogged arteries of our political discontent by being more welcoming and conciliatory.
The pre-dialogue dialogue between the political parties and five advisors should have focused more on this aspect. Then the speech could have been then crafted in a more positive than normative tone. A successful sales pitch is when the product is sold.
Heck, bygones are bygones. Right now it looks obvious that the government has been stripped of the popularity, which had insulated its earlier actions. It seems the politicians have also got the wind of that reality by now and they are trying to strike a hard bargain.
If the government wants election, it must get the participation of the politicians. Like it or not, it has the element of a stage director's dilemma when the script is compromised at the wish of star performers.
It brings us to the crux of the dialogue, which ought to be more than a conversation. Words and meanings ought to flow through unimpeded between the participating groups in order for the dialogue to be successful. This is how dialogue is far removed from discussion.
Discussion means to break things apart. Often time it's like a game, when the object is for one side to win and other side to lose. But dialogue is meant to be a win-win situation for both sides.
In other words, the dialogue will not be successful if the government wins alone. It must also make sure that the politicians win as well. How will that happen is the million dollar question. When support for the government is waning and the politicians are fast recovering their lost ground, how that is going to tip the balance is anyone's guess. The dialogue is the last chance for this government to show that it means business.
But will it be possible for the government to do that, since it has started a fresh round of arrests so close to the dialogue? Will it send the politicians ducking for cover under the government-initiated dialogue? Or, will it further alienate them to become choleric and defiant? Will it trash the chance of an election in December?
All of these uncertainties stem from one gauzy speech. I have said it before that communication hasn't been this government's strongest talent. This government needs to realise that time is running out fast. Everything it says or does in the course of the dialogue will have serious impact on the future of this country. If it wants election, it must win the hearts and minds of the politicians.
The politicians should come half way to meet the government. It is their chance to rise above pettiness to show that they love this country and are ready to sacrifice their vested interests.
Irrespective of which side of the fence we belong, it's time to keep our fingers crossed that everybody should win and nobody should lose in this dialogue. If need be, let the two top leaders participate, either by physical presence on parole or through video conferencing from their confinements.
Let us hope this time the two sides are going to connect. Simon and Garfunkel sing in "Sound of Silence" that people talk without speaking and people hear without listening because they don't dare disturb the sound of silence.
For last sixteen months, the silence has grown between the government and the politicians. If not disturbed, it will deepen our political crisis. They must talk before we become a single country separated by two monologues.
Good luck and Godspeed to the dialogue.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments