On atheists and politics
In the recent escalation of the war of words among the leaders of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party over "reform," Begum Khaleda Zia, former prime minister and chairperson of the party, called her secretary-general and long-time confidant, Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, a leftist and an atheist. One need not always attach much significance to name calling in a country long inured to the habit of calling names. But this one looked different.
I am not sure how Mr. Bhuiyan took this rather late discovery of his atheism by his party chief. But curiously enough, it reminded me of a story I read long ego about Rita Hayworth. The Hollywood heart-throb of yore is reported to have said of her many male friends (and I quote from memory): "Men sleep with Rita Hayworth and discover in the morning that it is only me."
Given the long association between the two political leaders, the matter of the belatedness of the discovery is easily seen as being a sham. The real thing, of course, is the put down that Begum Zia's description of Mr. Bhuiyan implied. By using two adjectives, rather than just one, Begum Zia probably wanted to make sure that her victim did not survive: if the first only felled him, the second could be used as a bludgeon that would put an end to him. Her eminence as a political leader makes it quite likely that other politicians would emulate this technique. This is not to suggest that the present assault by Begum Zia has finished Mr. Bhuyian off, or that it is sure to do so in the near future. But one never knows.
That put down must, therefore, have been important to Mr. Bhuiyan. No less important is its potential implication for politics in Bangladesh. Of the two epithets used by the BNP chairperson, "atheist' must be the more devastating, and not just for Mr. Bhuyian. This is not to belittle the stigma of being called a leftist in the present political climate of the country. Brand someone a genuine leftist and, perhaps with few exceptions, his political career would run into trouble.
But present him to the public as an atheist, and, perhaps without exception, he will be just about finished as a politician. In Bangladesh, as in other Muslim majority countries, a leftist politician can survive only with the aid of an elaborate contraption that constantly proclaims that he is not, repeat Not, against religion. For a self-confessed atheist survival is even harder because, by definition, he does not care about religion.
The handicap of being an atheist is not, however, entirely peculiar to a country like Bangladesh. A surprising fact is that in some secular societies too, a professed atheist has only limited chance of success as a political leader. Richard Dawkins, foremost Darwinian of our time and one of its leading atheists, quotes a Gallup poll according to which in the United States only 49 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for election to public office, as compared with 95 percent for a woman and 79 percent for a homosexual (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p.4.).
Other industrial countries are in general significantly more tolerant of atheists as political leaders, but the American example is important not least because the separation of the state from the church has been carried to greater lengths here than just about anywhere else. It also suggests how small the chances are for an atheist to survive as a politician in Bangladesh.
As my constant companion, Socrates, reminded me, there is, of course, absolutely no reason why an atheist should not be accepted as a political leader even in this country. He, or she, is by definition devoid of the religious bigotry that has been so harmful for the country. He will not tread on anyone's religious toes. Since morality has little to do with religious beliefs, the atheist as a political leader can also be as staunchly "moral" as the next politician.
And, given that secularism is one of the main pillars of the state as envisioned by its founding fathers, he has a far better claim to leadership of the nation than the politician who does not subscribe to that ideology. Finally, he can as legitimately declare himself as the defender of the rights of the individual to his beliefs, including the religious, as any so-called liberal. Does a country need any other qualification for a politician?
This is a compelling question and, hard though it may be for an atheist to prosper as a politician in this country, it must be asked. A case can surely be made in his support. Such an imperative may not save Mr. Bhuiyan if Begum Zia's arrow finds its mark and finds him alone. Not everybody will see that as a great loss to the country, especially in the context of his role in the sorry saga of the four-party alliance that ruled the country in recent years.
But if he is an authentic atheist, he, and others of his ilk, should do what my wise friend suggested, which was: make a clean break with the past, get into a coalition with real secularists, who may not be dyed-in-the wool Godless creatures but who would keep God out of politics, proclaim his unequivocal commitment to secularism and liberalism, which still have considerable support in the country, and make common cause even with leftist (a few of them are still left on the political scene) -- and never mind Begum Zia's insinuations -- in matters where state intervention in the economy of the country is desirable. He might, thus, be able to mount a formidable coalition of the good. And good luck to him.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments