WE Bangladeshis in the US are currently captivated by two political standoffs — one in the country we live in and the other in the country that we came from. The standoff between the two political parties in the US over budget, which has led to a shutdown of the federal government, is unseemly, but it has directly affected only a small segment of people — the federal employees. The standoff is more for settling political scores on matters of policy and principles, and what should be funded or not funded by the federal government than on personal feeling of one leader against the other. The standoff between two parties in the country of our roots, however, is very personal — it is because of complete lack of trust and the fear of one leader of the other. The political standoff in the US is over finances, and it does not threaten the existence or future of the country. The standoff in Bangladesh is between two personalities and it affects the future of the country.
Differences between the two major political parties in the US over budget and debt limits have been happened before. Each party has tried to browbeat the other party — particularly the president if he happened not to belong to the party that had control of one or the other house of legislature. But eventually good sense prevails, the country’s interest takes upper hand, negotiations are held and concessions are made. Unfortunately, this is not the history of Bangladesh. Our leaders have taken positions in the opposing ends of a spectrum, and have shown a level of intransigence unknown to politics in countries where democracy is practiced. Our leaders speak of democracy and level playing fields, but only in their terms — my way or the highway.
In less than two weeks the current government in Bangladesh completes its term for which it was elected by the people. In countries where parliamentary democracy is practiced, the normal way would be for the head of the government to resign, the cabinet and the parliament to be dissolved, and new elections held under an interim government. Normally, the outgoing head of the government is asked by the Head of State to form an interim government and hold the elections. In our country the practice was altered because of mistrust of the opposition in the outgoing government, and a neutral caretaker government headed by a non-political body of citizens held the elections.
The system worked perfectly for two successive elections until the last caretaker government, which proved to be more than a temporary government — both in duration and deeds. So the system was changed by the government. Terming the caretaker government as unconstitutional laws were amended and a new law was railroaded facilitating continuation of the government beyond its term and holding of elections with the parliament intact. Not only was “dirty” bath water thrown away, but also the entire baby along with it!
The political standoff that we face today in Bangladesh may not have its only origin in the caretaker government issue that the opposition has been clamouring for. It may have begun the day after the current government swept into power with a huge mandate from people, an election that the opposition termed as manipulated. It may have been further solidified by the opposition’s vision of persecution by the government through criminal cases against some of their leaders and their protégés. It may have been also hardened by the opposition’s continued absence from the parliament, and their frequent forays into the streets and shutting down the cities with wildcat strikes. And the government answered these protests with force, all in the name of preserving law and order.
What stood out in this politics of confrontation that we have witnessed in last five years are not fights between the two parties and their followers, but harsh and hostile exchanges between leaders of two parties that go well beyond the pale. Month after month we saw followers of one party chasing the other to death, properties destroyed, and innocent people put to grave dangers from political rallies and politically sponsored strikes. Threats have been uttered by one leader against the other, either in the media or in public. All of these have been purportedly done “for common people”, and ironically it is the common people who have suffered most. Yet, at no time, has either leader given any indication that they could settle their differences by having a dialogue. In the last five years not only has no dialogue been held, or attempts made to hold any, the only exchange they have had is through public accusation of each other of ill-faith, corruption, and power grabbing.
In the US people know that sooner or later the standoff will end. The leaders of both parties will come to a settlement through negotiations because they know that they cannot hold the country hostage to an untenable position. The present crisis will pass into history.
People in Bangladesh do not know where the country is headed. The standoff that started some five years ago does not show any sign of relenting with the two leaders further apart than a continental divide. Will there be elections? If so, under whose terms? If we go by each leader’s words then the government party will hold elections under their terms; but these will be without participation from the opposition. Will we have a repetition of the time when a caretaker government was first introduced and elections held under a neutral government? Will it be déjà vu all over again?
The biggest lesson of history is that no one learns from it. Time and again we have gone through such crises and each time our leaders were brought back to their senses by people’s revolt. But whenever this happened, a lot of damage was done to the country, its economy, its people, and its reputation. It is too optimistic to hope for a miracle to turn the tide of impending events. But if the two leaders agree, they can give a miracle to their people, if they really love the people as they profess.
Differences between the two major political parties in the US over budget and debt limits have been happened before. Each party has tried to browbeat the other party — particularly the president if he happened not to belong to the party that had control of one or the other house of legislature. But eventually good sense prevails, the country’s interest takes upper hand, negotiations are held and concessions are made. Unfortunately, this is not the history of Bangladesh. Our leaders have taken positions in the opposing ends of a spectrum, and have shown a level of intransigence unknown to politics in countries where democracy is practiced. Our leaders speak of democracy and level playing fields, but only in their terms — my way or the highway.
In less than two weeks the current government in Bangladesh completes its term for which it was elected by the people. In countries where parliamentary democracy is practiced, the normal way would be for the head of the government to resign, the cabinet and the parliament to be dissolved, and new elections held under an interim government. Normally, the outgoing head of the government is asked by the Head of State to form an interim government and hold the elections. In our country the practice was altered because of mistrust of the opposition in the outgoing government, and a neutral caretaker government headed by a non-political body of citizens held the elections.
The system worked perfectly for two successive elections until the last caretaker government, which proved to be more than a temporary government — both in duration and deeds. So the system was changed by the government. Terming the caretaker government as unconstitutional laws were amended and a new law was railroaded facilitating continuation of the government beyond its term and holding of elections with the parliament intact. Not only was “dirty” bath water thrown away, but also the entire baby along with it!
The political standoff that we face today in Bangladesh may not have its only origin in the caretaker government issue that the opposition has been clamouring for. It may have begun the day after the current government swept into power with a huge mandate from people, an election that the opposition termed as manipulated. It may have been further solidified by the opposition’s vision of persecution by the government through criminal cases against some of their leaders and their protégés. It may have been also hardened by the opposition’s continued absence from the parliament, and their frequent forays into the streets and shutting down the cities with wildcat strikes. And the government answered these protests with force, all in the name of preserving law and order.
What stood out in this politics of confrontation that we have witnessed in last five years are not fights between the two parties and their followers, but harsh and hostile exchanges between leaders of two parties that go well beyond the pale. Month after month we saw followers of one party chasing the other to death, properties destroyed, and innocent people put to grave dangers from political rallies and politically sponsored strikes. Threats have been uttered by one leader against the other, either in the media or in public. All of these have been purportedly done “for common people”, and ironically it is the common people who have suffered most. Yet, at no time, has either leader given any indication that they could settle their differences by having a dialogue. In the last five years not only has no dialogue been held, or attempts made to hold any, the only exchange they have had is through public accusation of each other of ill-faith, corruption, and power grabbing.
In the US people know that sooner or later the standoff will end. The leaders of both parties will come to a settlement through negotiations because they know that they cannot hold the country hostage to an untenable position. The present crisis will pass into history.
People in Bangladesh do not know where the country is headed. The standoff that started some five years ago does not show any sign of relenting with the two leaders further apart than a continental divide. Will there be elections? If so, under whose terms? If we go by each leader’s words then the government party will hold elections under their terms; but these will be without participation from the opposition. Will we have a repetition of the time when a caretaker government was first introduced and elections held under a neutral government? Will it be déjà vu all over again?
The biggest lesson of history is that no one learns from it. Time and again we have gone through such crises and each time our leaders were brought back to their senses by people’s revolt. But whenever this happened, a lot of damage was done to the country, its economy, its people, and its reputation. It is too optimistic to hope for a miracle to turn the tide of impending events. But if the two leaders agree, they can give a miracle to their people, if they really love the people as they profess.
No comments:
Post a Comment