Time to play the historic role
The Awami League after an extended meeting of the party on May 26 attended by more than 850 delegates representing almost every tier of their organisation from grass-roots level to the highest echelon, followed by a meeting the next day of the central working committee, the highest decision making body of the party, has decided not to join the ongoing dialogue with out Sheikh Hasina. The decision was unanimous and true reflection of the wishes and sentiments of the party workers and activists. One must admit that the decision, right or wrong, has been taken by the party in a most democratic manner, a practice not so common in the body politic of this country. One major accusation against our political parties is that they do not practice democracy within their parties. The parties are run in autocratic manner in the name of democracy. Interestingly, we now find it difficult, albeit out of our concern for election, to accept a decision of a party obtained democratically. We want Awami League to reverse the democratic decision of the party, ignoring the opinion of its workers and supporters out of fear that the decision may jeopardise the much needed election. The Daily Star, like many of us a strong critic of the political parties for not having democratic practice within the party, has, through its editorial asked Awami League to review the decision of the extended as well as working committee meetings, taking into account the fact that Sheikh Hasina has in a message to her party voiced her support for the election. We understand and share as well the paper's concern. No wonder, Winston Churchill had to say that "democracy is the worst form of government," but we may not forget, in the same breath he also said "but still better than all others that have been tried in the past." The editor of another daily is accusing the party of taking undue advantage of the situation by resorting to democratic process. Is it a fair accusation? On one hand you will want the political parties to practice democracy within the party and on other hand you will not only dislike the outcome of the process, but also question it. The reality is that Sheikh Hasina, despite all efforts from various quarters to disgrace her in the eyes of the public and debar her from politics, is still the most popular leader of the country, wielding overwhelming support from not only the grassroots level leaders and workers of the party, but also from a vast section of general public. There is no denying that, given what transpired in the political arena of the country in the last one and a half years, dialogue with the political parties is important for holding a meaningful election and peaceful transition to a democratic order by December this year. Although I do not consider it fair to put Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia in the same bracket, the reality is that the two ladies, as the top leaders of the two largest political parties representing nearly 80 percent voters of the country, still hold the key to a successful dialogue and a credible election. The government will do well if they can realise the situation and do all that is necessary to bring them to the table for dialogue. The government will also do well if they make it clear to the public the very purpose of the dialogue, spelling out a specific agenda. An open-ended dialogue always runs the risk of creating confusion and losing the actual target. What we have seen so far by the courtesy of television camera is that in the name of dialogue some small political parties have sat across the table with the nominated advisers of the caretaker government (CA sitting aloof at the other end of the table) and placed a charter of demands, some of which were either irrelevant or beyond the capacity of the caretaker government. Take for example, CPB in their turn has asked for revival of 1972 constitution. They want balance of power between the president and the prime minister. How can a caretaker government or the politicians do this now without a parliament? JSD and Gono Forum want a national government after the election. What has the caretaker government to do with it? What could be the basis of such demands? Again, we cannot but get confused when we see the government inviting the business community and the so-called civil society to the dialogue. What for? All these 16 months, with emergency on, the caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed had been talking and talking only with these people, keeping the politicians either inside the house or behind the bars or on the run. I wonder, what could still be left to talk with them? If the idea for a dialogue is to create a congenial atmosphere for holding a free, fair, and credible national election and smooth transfer of power to a truly elected representative government, it is probably high time for the caretaker government to give full attention in constructive engagement with the political parties, withdrawing all sorts of restrictions on peaceful political activities. Time has also come for Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia to play the historic role in shepherding the dialogue, in turn the politics of the country through a very difficult period. Certainly, much of the future of democracy depends on how carefully, patiently, and skillfully the caretaker government and the political parties handle the situation. The caretaker government, pledge-bound to hold a free, fair, and credible election by the third week of December 2008, will keep its promise under any circumstances, and the political parties, taking into account their past omissions and commissions, will redeem their plans and strategies and lead the nation towards peace, progress, and prosperity -- that is what the people of this country want. Capt Husain Imam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments