Straight Line
Hasina-Khaleda parley
SOME quarters would like to believe that a one to one meet of the two supreme political leaders who are not on talking terms will significantly repair the damage caused to our near dysfunctional democracy. Such optimists also entertain the hope that a meeting of the two ladies will have a sobering impact on our confrontational politics. In their genuine aspirations to see the advent of a healthy democratic culture, they have not apparently given much thought to the probable agenda of such a potential meeting.
In fact when one comes to think of the specific agenda of the aforementioned dialogue, one finds the task quite daunting. Skepticism sets in when the attitudinal differences appear irreconcilable. After all what minimum subjects must be discussed in the first meeting? What are the common meeting grounds? What readjustments and sacrifices, if any, have to be made? While there is no denying that the paramount necessity of such a dialogue will not be disputed by any democrat, the factors or the perspective suspected to be stalling fruitful talks are perhaps not being adequately focused for pragmatic understanding of the situation.
Many well-intentioned citizens believe that there should not be much difficulty to begin a dialogue without perhaps seriously studying the post 1975 political scenario and the mindset of the politicians across the divide.
The older political party, the Awami League, consider the BNP as the beneficiary of the tragic and cruel changes of 1975 that killed the Father of the Nation in the most gruesome manner. Information provided responsible quarters speak of a conspiracy involving a foreign power in connection with the above assassination. Accusing finger is also pointed to the founding father of the BNP. One may or may not be able to know the truth in the not-too-distant future but undoubtedly, the facts and circumstances surrounding the great tragedy and its aftermath do not facilitate the creation of a favourable climate for dialogue.
To this one might add the horrendous acts of 21st August 2004 that saw deaths in double figures and hundreds of injuries. To make matters worse, the nation had to suffer the costly tragedy of the murder of AL stalwart SAMS Kibria, an internationally reputed illustrious personality. The compounding grief is that the investigation of the above two incidents thus far does not raise much hope about the sincerity of the authority.
The BNP on the other hand accuses the AL of introducing one-party rule and gagging press freedom in 1975 and sees itself as the great deliverer that brought back multi-party democracy and rejuvenated the nation by heralding a new breed of nationalism. Quite often its leaders denigrate the AL for their (AL) so-called fascistic proclivities. Some BNP leaders of lesser stature question the very credentials of AL as a democratic party and are found encouraged in lambasting their opponents in the most impetuous manner.
Some less-than-responsible personalities from both sides of the political divide display a nearly comical 'more catholic than the Pope' posture, by indulging in virulent criticism of the recognized national figures of the political scene.
Their compulsions, some historical and some personal, may be understood by the discerning observer but cannot be appreciated by any democrat. Their political diatribe, without doubt is fuelling the already pernicious polarization of our polity.
From a study of the very brief account placed herein before, one would perhaps be right to presume that our politicians, unfortunately, hold diametrically opposite views on many aspects of our national life including the basics. Therefore, one may very reasonably wonder how in such a situation there would be a political reconciliation of nationally important issues with the ultimate objective of building a cohesive society. For cohesion is supremely important for socio-economic emancipation of a modern state. One may, however, be right in concluding that such paternalistic or altruistic views betray a pathetic lack of appreciation of the ground realities rooted in our contemporary history.
Coming to specifics, one may hypothetically suggest that all criticisms, however well-founded, of the father of the nation and late President Ziaur Rahman should henceforth be stopped for creating political goodwill. While expression of such a hope may not be difficult, it would be politically and intellectually a near-impossible proposition. On a point of illustration, it has to be said that any dispassionate analysis of the two figures stated above will contain some unfavourable reference for obvious reasons even if our politicians unexpectedly succeed in restraining their tongue. And since Bengali is admittedly a language of over-statement and with Bangladeshis being a very sensitive and sentimental lot, it may not be long before our political masters lose their composure at the slightest innuendoes and revert to their favourite slanging bouts with renewed gusto. The bad wave moves upward.
On many other matters relating to the body-politic there are dangerously opposing views which are forestalling the much-desired convergence. There are suspicions to believe that some political elements aligned with the BNP have not reconciled to the emergence of Bangladesh on the basis of Bengali nationalism and nurse a desire towards the establishment of a theocratic state. Such elements are obstacles in the way of fruitful political dialogue.
Harassing political opponents by the institution of palpably false cases is a sad reality of Bangladesh's political culture. The AL continues to allege that thousands of criminals were let off by the BNP government as a matter of political expediency while the latter says that a large number of their party workers were falsely implicated in criminal cases due to political vengeance and that the authority has taken remedial action after proper examination and scrutiny.
Under the above circumstances, one can see that the peculiar dynamics of our politics is giving rise to heightened social tension with the attendant ill-effects. The credibility of state regulatory institutions is eroded. In such an environment meaningful dialogue cannot take place.
There are a host of other factors which also pose as barrier to the initiation of political dialogue but since it is hoped that the identification and resolution of the major irritants may usher in a healthy climate for better understanding, those have not been listed here. Mention also must be made that there are perhaps a few non political factors which debar the two leaders from communicating to each other but as those are not considered very significant, no discussion has been deemed necessary here.
The politics of summitry whether in the international parlance or on the domestic plane require painstaking homework to sort out the thorny issues, may be not all in one go, to enable the supreme leaders to arrive at a desirable outcome. As far as the dialogue of our two principal leaders is concerned, the first task may be to thrash out some common agreements through the wisdom of our political leaders who should be able to arrive at a bare reducible minimum. Thereafter, the leaders may engage in meaningful discussion, aided and supported by the civil society with tacit backup from friendly quarters.
There may be a need to at least agree on the following:
i. Assassination or murder for political or any objective cannot be condoned and the guilty must be brought under the law.
ii. Complete and unconditional commitment to Bangladesh's political identity as a sovereign democratic republic has to be unequivocally ensured.
iii. While criminal activities in support of political objective have to be punished, the emerging political change has to be recognized in the light of the reality warranted by irreversible circumstances.
iv. Contribution to war of liberation by all concerned has to be recognized in true measures and political history of the country has to be recorded in proper perspective.
v. Both parties must have the magnanimity to acknowledge the aberrations caused to the polity by their respective policy and action.
Cynical observers of the Bangladeshi political scene entertain grave doubts about a real change in the style and substance of advocacy in so far as our dispute resolution scenario is concerned. Their continued pessimism is not without ground as hapless Bangladeshis sadly watched their guardians unmoved despite the combined onslaught of logic and reason, law and fact.
Even now otherwise responsible and erudite politicians are talking irrelevantly and irreverently. The tragedy is that we are forgetting that democracy, with freedom of opinion and opposition, is not the normal way of organizing society but is a rare human achievement. In our environment, many citizens may appear un-dimensional but our political leaders have no excuse for being so perilously un-dimensional. They have to act as catalyst. The responsibilities which today lie on their shoulders are far greater than at any earlier time in our history.
We seem to be oblivious that law moves on a unique plane and that a lawful society reflects man's sense of order and justice. Such society embodies rules and traditions that have a binding effect and provides the enduring element the dimension of permanence in history. We cannot have a government without order and there can be no order without law. Viewed in the above context, there is no doubt that the country is in the midst of a grave crisis and the premonition is that the downward slide has to be arrested firmly.
The defenders of our constitution would not admit the manifest reality that during the last couple of years institutions like general administration, Police, Election Commission, Public Service Commission and judiciary have been politicized. One has to find out why desperate attempts have been made to somehow return to political power.
The unfortunate reality is that while sinister politicians have gone full speed on the self-defeating course of sabotaging the state institutions to serve their selfish interests, the political opposition has miserably failed to inform and alerting the polity about the real threats to our fledgling democracy.
One may need some guile or perhaps be wily to remain steady in the rough and tumble of politics but must we stoop so low and deadly as to besmirch all the regulatory and corrective institutions only to outwit the opponent and perilously clamber to power?
The country is now sharply and dangerously polarized with political adversaries bent upon destroying each other. The language of reason and moderation is absent while there is hardly any trace of tolerance. For the proposed parley to be politically meaningful and to resolve our political conflict, the two supreme leaders may have to accept painful compromises in the greater interest of democracy.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments