1/11
NOW that the dust has settled and that we have an elected government in place, the time is right for a full inquiry into 1/11, whether on balance it was a good thing or a bad thing, what the interim government did right and what it did wrong, what lessons have been learned, and what are the implications for the future.
Today, I want to focus on the very first question: the question of whether the soft military intervention of 1/11 was a good thing for the country or not.
There are some who argue that such an intervention can never be justified and that we would be better off had the army stayed in its barracks and let the political process take its course.
They argue, on principle, that any interference in the democratic process is unhealthy and unacceptable, and that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Democracy, they argue, cannot take root in the face of repeated interventions.
However, I am not so sure about that. I think it depends on the kind of intervention and that, as it happens, 1/11 appears to have strengthened our democracy in many ways.
Indeed, I would make the counter-argument that democracy most certainly cannot take root in the face of a ruling party that does not believe in democracy or rule of law, kills, fire-bombs, loots and maims, makes partisan every corner of the administration and the private sector, controls the judiciary, runs the police and intelligence agencies as its own personal militia, has no respect for public opinion, imposes a reign of terror over anyone who opposes it, and rigs elections.
What would have happened if 1/11 had not occurred? There would have been massive violence starting from January 14, as the AL promised to take to the streets and ensure that the elections could not be held. Many people feared complete anarchy and a civil war-like situation. Frankly, that would have been a best case scenario.
I have always believed that the then-government would have been able to weather those storms and hold things together sufficiently in order to administer elections that the BNP would have won by walkover.
Immediately upon election, its propaganda machine would have gone into overdrive arguing that the new government was constitutionally legitimate and that the results would have to be respected.
In fact, the arguments for "constitutional continuity" in favour of the BNP's rigged elections had already started making the rounds of the chattering classes in editorials and op-eds and on talk-shows.
With arguable constitutional legitimacy for the new government, the army, civil society, and international community would have signed on. With an elected government in place, however farcical the elections, and police and army under its control, protest would have been crushed.
The administration and judiciary would have been made partisan beyond repair. Ditto the army and police. All would have been used as organs of political repression. Dissent of any sort would have been choked, the media silenced, opposition of any sort decimated.
We would have ended up with one-party rule and no way of removing it, however unpopular it got, with the electoral, judicial, and coercive machineries of state firmly in its hands. This was the writing on the wall on 1/10.
One key point which needs to be made as counter-point to those who point to the rule of law and due process violations of the interim government is that the government was a temporary one.
Had the BNP come to power via a rigged election and then kept all coercive machineries of the state and the EC under its control, then it would have been impossible to remove, and, unlike the interim government, it certainly would not have left voluntarily.
I am certainly not arguing that it would be better to live under army-backed rule permanently. But the question is whether the abuses of the past two years were worth it considering where we are today and what the alternatives were.
Given that we were saved from a rigged election and that the country appears to have emerged from the past two years not as badly scathed as one might have feared, and that we now have a democratically elected government in place, I would argue that on balance it was worth it.
Of course, there are worries about the precedent set by 1/11. But it is important to recall that the alternatives were worse and unless there is complete political breakdown or rampant lawlessness on the part of an elected government, uncorrectible by electoral means, I don't see any reason to fear a reprise.
Indeed, one thing the last two years have brought home to us quite clearly is the limitations of what the army is capable of. The trajectory of the last two years suggests that the army can only act in concord with broad public support for its actions.
The limited tolerance of the Bangladeshi people for an extended period of non-democratic rule and their clearly expressed preference for democracy is the nation's best guarantee against unwanted interventions in the future.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments