Two women — and a funeral?
Bangladesh has been through its longest strike in recent history, a four-day (96 hrs) event called by the Opposition that paralysed the country. Awami League’s Hasina Wajed, supported by jailed former President Gen Ershad’s Jatiya Party (JP), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), etc have been agitating for early elections for the past year or so. The prolonged (and frequent) stoppage in the workplace is affecting the economy, a sector that was just beginning to see light at the end of a rather longish dark tunnel.
The crux of the problem lies in the mode of elections, the Opposition insisting that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Government headed by Begum Khaleda Zia cannot be trusted to hold a free and fair exercise of adult franchise. To that end it is holding out for elections to be conducted by a Caretaker PM who should be a genuinely neutral person. In 1990 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Mr Shahabuddin was sworn in as the President, forming a Caretaker Cabinet of genuinely neutral persons each of whom gave an undertaking not to enter politics for several years. History records that in 1991 the fairest exercise of the free vote in Bangladesh’s turbulent political history was carried out, so much so that even the man toppled in the prolonged civil disturbances, Gen Ershad, won all four of the seats he contested (with his opponents forfeiting their security deposit) from jail, his Party obtaining 35 or so odd seats in Parliament. Given that history, AL’s refusal to let the BNP Government finish its full term is hardly democratic, besides it sets a bad precedent for future elected governments. Since generally Awami League is taken to be a left-of-centre pro-India party, the result was taken to be a resounding victory for the moderate middle of the road to-right majority in the population that is not so much anti-India as it is nationalist and as such fiercely independent as well as independent-minded of its rather domineering and hegemonistic neighbour. Begum Khaleda Zia’s response to the Opposition demand has been that (1) the Government must complete its full five-year term (which in any case it is close to doing) (2) there is nothing in the Constitution about a Caretaker Government (even though there is an immediate precedent) and (3) even if the BNP agrees to a Caretaker Government and Begum Khaleda Zia would step down, it should be headed by a BNP person or nominee. Given the prevalent Constitution which does not provide for a Caretaker set-up, even if the Chief Justice was requested to form the Caretaker Government, he would probably decline because it would be against the Constitution. Parliament cannot pass laws to the effect because after the resignation of MPs belonging to AL, JP, etc, those remaining, mostly BNP, do not have the requisite two-thirds in Parliament to pass any law into effect. Bye-elections must be held for the vacant seats to obtain the two-thirds quorum necessary to pass laws. Obviously the Opposition is opposed to this, so we are back to square one in a Constitutional Catch-22.
Given that Gen Ershad had been late Gen Zia’s deputy for nearly six years before his assassination by a third party, the falling out between Begum Khaleda Zia and Gen Ershad was more of personal chemistry (based on the rather far-fetched assumption that somehow Gen Ershad had prior knowledge what late Maj Gen Manzoor was planning) rather than political differences. Through Gen Ershad’s reign, AL remained in the Opposition, as they were to his assassinated predecessor, late Gen Ziaur Rahman, the differences between JP and AL have been political rather than personal. On the other hand Begum Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed had developed severe dislike for each other over the years despite their common front against Ershad, this deepened when AL split to fight elections against JP in mid-1980s, leaving BNP in the lurch and in the political cold. Despite their differences, the two women combined to topple Ershad in 1990. Today, in the mould of Chanakhya’s philosophy of “an enemy’s enemy is a friend”, Hasina Wajed has sought (and received) a pre-electoral alliance with jailed former President Ershad to topple Begum Khaleda Zia, though BNP is ideologically a virtual clone of JP without a fig leaf to separate them. Such are the principles of Bangladesh’s politics and damn the consequences hereof and thereof.
One must not be led away by the success of the strikes to deem Begum Khaleda Zia as unpopular, her late husband’s honesty and integrity still gives her considerable political momentum, the humming economy will be enough to give her a majority of votes cast. Bangladesh’s urban areas, like most urban areas in the world, are basically anti-government unlike the majority population (70%) that dwells in the countryside and will usually vote for populist leaders with control over the government media, particularly radio and TV. Dhaka is basically a “one street” town leading from the Tongi Industrial Area to Narayanganj (while bounded on two sides by rivers), with all major installations and institutions on or just off this North-South axis, almost any major political action can paralyse this hub of all activities, a volatile melting pot for most frustrations felt by a beleaguered middle and lower-middle class. In a truly neutral atmosphere, the results can be challenging and surprising. To give one example, Maj (Retd) Mannan, presently Bangladesh Minister for Aviation (and formerly of Pakistan’s elite Commandos, the Special Services Group (SSG)), beat AL’s Hasina Wajed by a wide margin in the last elections in an urban constituency in Dhaka. As a member of the government-in-power and since the urban populace generally votes against the government in power, it is an even bet that the businessmen-politician would probably return to his own constituency in the Char areas South of Feni for the next round. JP will probably profit from Gen Ershad’s continued incarceration, a sympathetic swing vote in many constituencies taking up their seat count upto 50 or so. BNP will lose some ground in urban areas but will be well short of making the Government on their own without the support of another political party. It is Gen Ershad’s JP that will have the swing (and nuisance) vote (on the pattern of PML(J) in Pakistan) to decide who makes the coalition Government. The general remaining in jail, we may yet see a third woman, Begum Roshan Ershad, emerge as a force in the electoral fray.
The present paralysis of governance can only lead to doom and gloom for Bangladesh, particularly on the disastrous effect it has on the economy, which was showing definite signs of being vibrant. It is always amazing to note how leaders who loudly proclaim that they are ready to sacrifice their lives for their country seem ever ready to take their masses and constituencies to death and destruction respectively to satisfy their own egos and ambitions. Destiny sometimes thrusts leaders into greatness despite their lack of potential or ability. In fact it is Gen Ershad who comes better off in logical perception, after all by stepping down he forestalled bloodshed by avoiding the splitting of the Army. The man had the courage to stay in the country and face the music despite the personal risk he still endures. Who will give wisdom (Buddhi) to these two women that continued confrontation can only lead to an apocalypse engulfing their beloved country? What thought is being given to the masses whom these ladies profess to lead. Those who profess to love their country should be ready to give personal sacrifices and not ask the masses to make sacrifices for them. Do they have the courage to make compromises, certainly much lower down the ladder of self-denial? Blinkered by their own egos and ambitions at the cost of their country, they cannot see beyond that narrow frontier, nor seem to feel the hunger and want of the masses they profess to lead, they have no enduring vision for the nation they profess to love. Their personal needs and desires are subservient to that of their country, they have no ability to rise above themselves.
All this while, the third force, as in all Third World countries, must be seething with frustration at the seemingly impossible political impasse. In Bangladesh as in Pakistan only coups led by the military hierarchy have succeeded but Bangladesh has had at least one non-hierarchical successful coup (August 1995) with post-facto unwilling approval of the hierarchy (for a 3 month period only). As such, however loyal the Bangladesh Army and its hierarchy may be, it is not prudent to pit their loyalty and patience against their conscience lest they reluctantly apply “the Doctrine of Necessity” out of the concept of a “Clear and Present Danger” as enunciated by US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Simmering resentment at the grassroots soldier level has a history of building up pressure on their superiors, weakening the resolve and pushing them past a fail-safe line. Adventurers down the line usually exploit the situation for their own crass ambition and narrow motivated interests.
There is dire and immediate need to make a neutral Caretaker Government and to agree about the procedures and technicalities thereof. Most of the issues can be resolved if there is a will to resolve such issues for the good of the country. To avail a recurrence of political (and civil) strife choking the life of every elected government, the mandate of the Caretaker Government must be extended to at least a year to take in accountability as well as system-reform. This limited time span must be used to resolve the recurring maladies that bedevil the Bangladeshi nation before entering into the exercise of conducting free and fair elections. The two ladies must soon agree to a mandate for neutral Caretakers or prepare for the Undertaker that will surely preside over the funeral of Bangladesh as a nation.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment