As the PM roared, the battle line has been drawn Mozammel H. Khan

As the PM roared, the battle line has been drawn

Mozammel H. Khan

Published on February 13, 2007

In any democracy, politics is all about scoring political points. In a nascent democracy, it is more so for the fact that success of a politician largely depends on how adeptly one could fool his/her constituents. In Bangladeshï¿½s political landscape, this perception has become more obvious in recent weeks in the backdrop of the PMï¿½s letter to the opposition political parties inviting them to sit for dialogues with the intention to contrive a strategy to fight the recent spate of terrorist attacks all across the country. Did the PM really believe that the opposition would extend an olive branch in response to her invitation? The answer is a big nay. Her sole objective was to score some political points. The stage was skilfully set with all those, which were required to meet that end. Score of journalists and TV crews were available on the spot when a very low ranking official from the PMï¿½s office came to the house of leader of the opposition to deliver the letter of invitation. It was shown on TV camera how impolite it was on the part of the opposition leader that a (probably) servant of the house was there in front of the TV camera to tell the letter carrier that there was no one in the house to receive the letter. The government was fully successful in devising a perfect script and it surely did score a few political points.

However, the vantage of the government ended as soon as the leader of her loyal opposition, Kader Siddiqui met with the PM and, in line with most of the reliable media reports, squarely pointed his finger, supposedly, towards the most important partner of the BNP in the coalition government as the mastermind of the bomb attacks. The accusation of Kader Siddiqui took the government off guard. The government made it imperative that in any future dialogue with any opposition political party, who chooses to respond positively, either through free will or by compulsion, no one repeats the accusation. It was stringently maintained when the fallen dictator, who allegedly had to divorce his young wife due to governmentï¿½s instigation, has been instructed by the PMï¿½s office not to table the accusation similar to the one laid out by Kader Siddiqui. With a dozen of corruption cases hanging against him, the fallen dictator chose not risk his freedom at this stage of the dialogue drama.

If one goes through the opinions and commentaries as published in the countryï¿½s printed news media, two clearly opposing views have emerged vis-ï¿½-vis the necessity of a dialogue between the government and the opposition. On one side, there were unconditional pro-dialogue views largely expressed by those who so far were solidly behind the government in denying the international media reports starting from Bertil Lintnerï¿½s ï¿½Bangladesh: A cocoon of terrorï¿½ to Eliza Griswoldï¿½s ï¿½The next Islamic Revolution?ï¿½. They, in most cases, concurred with the government views in blaming the opposition politicians and the secular intellectuals, both at home and abroad, for their part in collaborating with those reporters with the intention to tarnish the image of the country. In the home front, the government spared no time in blaming the opposition and taking many of the politicians and freethinking intellectuals into custody following any bomb attacks, notwithstanding the fact that the attacks were targeted towards the opposition rallies, personalities and the secular institutions. Only after the unprecedented and simultaneous bomb attacks, not specifically targeted towards the opposition, on August 17 in the 63 out 64 administrative districts of the country, the government did not directly blame or arrest any of the opposition activists. However, the vocabularies of the PM and a few other government leaders have been still lurking around the ï¿½conspiracy to tarnish the image of the countryï¿½, ï¿½to make the country a failed stateï¿½ or ï¿½to stop the countryï¿½s progress and developmentï¿½, the terms which are exclusively reserved for the main opposition, since the beginning of its inception to the helm of the government. The militants, who are bent on sacrificing their lives, are not making any bones to hide their intention to transform Bangladesh into a theocratic Islamic state of their own thought. The word ï¿½imageï¿½, tarnishing or edifying, is probably the last thing in their mind since they are hardly worried about what the rest of the world would think about their coveted State. It is not only that the bulk of our people despise their objective, they abhor the violent means they are using to meet that end and want the government to deal with them and to bring them to proper justice. Does the government need any help from the opposition to deal with the situation, which the government itself has termed a ï¿½national crisisï¿½? One must take into cognizance of the fact that the crisis is an internal one and has been imposed upon the State by its own citizens, notwithstanding the probable support of some external groups, not of any State. The nation has not been subjected to any external aggression.

Here comes the other school of thoughts that labels the proposed dialogue--a futile exercise. In a working democracy, to deal with any national crisis, the best forum to discuss the issue is the parliament, where the government can solicit support from the opposition to pass any new law to deal with the crisis. However, with a dysfunctional parliament, where even the carnage of August 21 was not considered serious enough to warrant any discussions, and a huge numerical strength of the ruling coalition, the government can pass any law and even can amend the constitution, as it desires, without the support of the opposition. Other than criticizing or supporting any enactment of a new law, the opposition has hardly any say or control in the any of the following three broad steps required to be undertaken to bring any of the perpetrators to justice. Firstly, it is the members of the law enforcing authority, who decide who to arrest. It is the public prosecutors, who decide whose bail petition has to be opposed. Secondly, it is the investigating team who decides which material and other evidences have to be used to frame a charge. It is only they, who decide how strong a charge sheet should be or under which criminal code the charge has to be framed. Although, one of the leading accused publicly disclosed their determination (on TV) to throw away the constitution of the Republic, no sedition charge has been brought against any of them. Finally, it is the judges of the court, who would dispense the justice in accordance with the strength of the charge sheet, validity of the evidences and in line with the demand and argument of the public prosecutors. Each element of this system has been absolutely politicized under the present administration and, at this time, is under the full control of the chief executive of the Sate, the PM. In addition, when the PM publicly reaffirmed her determination to keep her four party alliance intact, the whole system gets the message who should not be implicated in the process. The opposition could have scored a few important political points by explaining these to the members of the public and by demanding judicial investigations of each case by a tribunal whose members had to be chosen through national consensus and the subsequent public trials of the accused. A case in demand could have been to interrogate publicly the former SP of Rajshahi whose action of providing escort to Bangla Bhai and his entourage in their highly publicised parading of the city street that made international headlines. All these obvious demands would have acted as a two-way sword for the government. If the media reports and the PMï¿½s conversations with the editor of a Bangla Daily had to be believed, one would find merit in the oppositionï¿½s accusation that the PM knew all about it and that she was under the assurance that they would never go out of her control. It was fine with her as long as they were directing their violent activities towards her archrivals and none of these activities was ever directed to BNP and its allies.

The political points that could have been easily bagged by the opposition without even participating in the dialogue has been given back to the opposition fold by the PM through her roaring speech of desperation as uttered in the public meeting on December 21 at the Paltan maidan. The fiery speech reflected multiple dimensions. Firstly, it has exposed the lack of goodwill that was expected from the PM of a nation that has fallen into a ï¿½national crisisï¿½ due to governmentï¿½s inaction, if not encouragement. Secondly, it has disappointed the nation that had expected a conciliatory tone from the PM to invoke the opposition to reciprocate. Thirdly, it reflected a complete lack of perception of the PM of the history of the democratic struggle of the land, which incidentally, she now rules. What the PM needed around her, at this time, was a group of friends, not sycophants, who would dare to feed her with the real picture of the most reprehensible affairs of the State. The PM would be well advised to go through the pages of history that was not very kind to the despots who had ever dared to bring sedition charge against any of the popular politicians of this land. All our national heroes from Sher-e-Bangla to Shurawardy and Bhasani to Bangabandhu have been subjected to such charges more than once, of course, without any degree of capitulation from any of them. One such infamous sedition case transformed Sheikh Mujib into Bangabandhu and consequently gave birth to Bangladesh. All those despots have been thrown into the debris of history while all the accused heroes remain in the hearts of the millions and would remain so for all time to come. Lastly, by dismissing the demands of the opposition vis-ï¿½-vis their proposed reform of the EC and the CTG, and her declared intransigence to hold the next election under the current framework, the PM seems to have forgotten so easily the humiliating end she herself had to meet in 1996.

A democratic leader transforms to despotic when he/she fails to listen to the voice of the people. A few months ago, one such chorale was sung by the people of a southern city through their verdict in the mayoral election. The similar message was once again loudly delivered by the people of a northern district in a recent by-election. The fully ï¿½intactï¿½ four party alliance was not able to save any of those days for the honourable Prime Minister. Has the PM completely failed to listen to such loud and clear voice of the people? Her speech of despondence, unfortunately, reaffirmed so.

Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh. He writes from Toronto, Canada.