Post Breakfast
Morality in politics and coalition partners
I shall reflect today first on the impact of the absence of morality in politics and then on the need for care in creating coalition partnerships. I will refer to the close equation between morality and politics because of what took place recently in New Delhi. I shall also express my thoughts about the dangers of forming unwholesome coalitions.
The other day I was reading fellow op-ed writer Kuldip Nayar's analysis on how the ruling party in India managed to salvage a marginal victory in the no confidence vote in the Indian Lok Sabha over the issue of undertaking a nuclear deal with the United States. The author expressed his severe disappointment on whether politics in India, the land of Gandhi, is guided by morals. He came down quite sharply and commented that 'India has' not only 'proved that democracy knows no morals' but also that 'when the time came to prove India's democratic system was in place, we were found wanting.' With moral courage he has gone on to take to task several political parties -- the Congress, the BJP ('which fell from the minimum standards of integrity') and also the parties belonging to the left.
Other reports have also indicated that both sides in this political drama in New Delhi went to extreme lengths to garner respective support, with some Indian MPs being offered bribes of up to the equivalent of US Dollar 6 million and others being lured with hints of future ministerial posts. There have also been suggestions that some were influenced in the name of communalism and casts. We have in this regard also seen on the electronic media Indian opposition BJP MPs displaying bundles of currency notes on the floor of the Parliament. It was claimed by them that the money was given to them to ensure their abstention from voting. A sorry tale indeed in terms of ethical standards.
This form of horse-trading reminded me of our own brand of compromises that has soiled our past political activity on many occasions. Principles fled out of the window, and the main goal became winning the election at any cost. This principal objective of the end justifying the means, over the last three decades has also resulted in aberrations within our political process. It has encouraged partisanship, abuse of power, politicisation of state machinery and gradual erosion of an effective and meaningful Parliament. The absence of morality in politics has acted as a catalyst and eventually promoted corruption, mis-governance, lack of transparency and accountability. It affected decision-making and led to unwholesome compromises.
It all started after the tragic assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members on the night of 15 August 1975. After this came the BNP. One of the first acts of late President Ziaur Rahman was to integrate within the body politics of this country, controversial personalities who had openly sided with the occupation Pakistani military junta and its efforts to crush all those involved in our glorious War of Liberation. This, as well as the promulgation of the Indemnity Ordinance, was undertaken to ensure that the new rulers would be able to forge a coalition and create a counter-balance to the progressive factions who had supported the Awami League and the War of Independence in 1971. The net result of this moral slide was not only the rehabilitation of the Jamaat and anti-liberation forces, but the initiation of a brand of politics devoid of morality and principle.
Since then, we have seen successive examples of compromise of our collective political conscience. Consistent with the adages that 'there is no permanent friend or foe in politics' and 'you have strange bedfellows in politics,' we have sacrificed time and again our principles at the alter of expediency. Such an attitude has been unfortunate to say the least.
A classical example of how things went wrong through unholy alliances was evidenced in the manner in which the past BNP Alliance government came to power in 2001. In this context it would be fitting to remember that despite an overwhelming Muslim population, we have historically rejected (over the last sixty years) political parties that have played the Islamic card in politics. This was true during the Pakistan days and has been so also during independent Bangladesh. Parties like Jamaat or Nizam-e-Islam or Khelafat Andolon have mostly won a handful of seats in the elections. Yet, despite this, the BNP entered into an alliance, in true tradition of its founder. Then, they painted the Awami League as a tool of India and anti-Islam to win the election. The Jamaat did not win many seats but its conservative minority support enabled the BNP to win many marginal seats. Morality and ethnics were booted out of the electoral matrix.
We all know what happened subsequently between 2001 and 2006. Despite the existing liberal tradition within our country, the government, because of its coalition partners, succumbed at the grassroots level to the extremists and Islamic fundamentalists. They made it clear that they had brought BNP to power and therefore were more or less above the cognizance of law. The government was powerless to restrain the deteriorating situation. Extremism surfaced under the guise of terrorist attacks. Intolerance manifested itself through the Jamaatul Mujahedin Bangladesh (JMB), the Hizb ul Tahrir and other splinter groups. All these outfits flourished with state power connivance and law and order sadly deteriorated. The government failed to play by the rules and we had chaos in governance. It also affected the judicial process and the upholding of the existing regulatory framework. In other words, expediency aimed at winning the election in 2001 led straight to the gateway of anarchy. Unlike other civilized countries, judges were attacked and explosives used to make a point. It subsequently required open intervention by some of our development partners before the Alliance government had the courage to incarcerate some of the terrorists perpetrating mayhem within the country.
The net result was that Bangladesh was identified most unfortunately as an Islamist terrorist prone State that required careful monitoring. It was a slap on our face and our efforts towards branding Bangladesh as a country suitable for foreign direct investment. We still carry that stigma due to the unholy nexus of the past elected regime.
This time round, in 2008, we are witnessing once again unfortunate emphasis on the creation of a 'Grand Alliance' by including some controversial parties whose agenda till now have been based on opportunism. Everyone knows that they are trying to regain access to power and governance by riding on the coat tails of a larger and potentially victorious political party. With marginal support, debatable backgrounds and questionable programmes, they will have more to gain than to lose.
I can understand the emphasis that is being given by certain parties towards the formation of fresh coalitions. However, what worries me is whether such a coalition will improve the quality of post-electoral governance. It will including in its fold seeds of partisanship, corruption, spirit of vengeance and discord. There will also be the absence of a common agenda on the resolution of important issue like -- making universal healthcare available to the marginalized rural population, taking steps to achieve food and energy security, better disaster management, tackling of environmental issues, encouraging vocational training at the lowest administrative levels (to ensure that we improve the skill of our workers and make them more competitive in this globalized world) and doing away with the restrictive Article 70 in our Constitution.
I have followed the evolution of the political scenario in Bangladesh with great care for many years and have written many articles on the need for political parties to contribute towards a functional and accountable democracy. I had great hopes that this time round we will have a better political matrix. However, once again, we appear to be forgetting that there is more to democracy and meaningful governance than just the framework associated with the holding of elections and winning it, whatever the cost.
It is this disquiet about the prospective scenario that forces me to warn that a coalition, whatever it may be called, can be a source of great distraction in post-election politics rather than an asset. So select your partners right now with greater care to avoid subsequent need for appeasement and compromise.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments