Politics
“Let's talk about it”
The law is not a stumbling block to form a caretaker or some other type of interim government. Photo: SK Enamul Haque
With the onset of violence and other dreadful manifestations of confrontational politics, people are becoming more and more anxious about their wellbeing and the nation's welfare for the last few weeks. The businesspeople's anguish over incessant hartals has never been more extreme. Civil society came up with recommendations to solve the political unrest preceding the upcoming election. The proposal for dialogue between the two major parties Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party, has been unanimously declared as the only way to solve the political impasse that is now crippling the nation.
But such advice has fallen on deaf ears, getting an upper hand in the confrontation seems to have become more important than that of the nation's call for a resolution. The intolerance and disrespect amongst political leaders, as they hurl inflammatory remarks at each other, have made the possibility of a civilised dialogue next to impossible.
It is, however, not the first time the two leaders have been unwilling to discuss things for the betterment of the nation.
Professor Emajudding Ahamed, former vice-chancellor of Dhaka University, draws on how the two leaders have always veered away from talks. “We have seen arrangements for dialogue twice. In 2003, Abdul Jalil and Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, both now deceased, failed to convince their leaders for a conversation.”
The professor recounts the failed mediation in 1996. Australian Governor General Sir Stephen Martin Ninian, on behalf of the commonwealth, spent 42 days convincing the two leaders to form an interim government by drawing five politicians each from their respective parties, with the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia retaining her position. But the then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina did not conform.
“In democracy, dialogue is the best way to end crises. Politicians must consider the present crisis as a national crisis and convince their leaders. But they developed a feudal attitude and weakness for power politics, and not pro-people politics. How can their party create a democratic aura in the country when they don't have democratic ethos within their respective parties?” he adds.
Professor Ahamed notes that our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has presented her own peace model before the world. “Shouldn't she initiate a peaceful dialogue in her own country?” he proposes.
Despite examples of failures, all is not lost. Asif Nazrul, professor of law at Dhaka University points out that the two parties have had the experience of finding a common ground. “These two parties have had discussions during the movement against HM Ershad's autocratic rule in the 1990s. There were three coalitions– of the AL, the BNP and the leftists. There were regular discussions amongst these three coalitions through their liaison committees, which is a unique example of an inter-party discussion.”
Professor Nazrul presents another example that after Ershad's fall, the BNP compromised their preference for a presidential form of government over the AL and the leftists' demand for a parliamentary government. “And this was possible only through discussion,” he comments.
But this time, the two major parties seem to be impervious to the people's call for sitting together to resolve their differences. Asked why the revulsion for dialogue, professor Nazrul explains, “The politicians in the presidium or the cabinet are absolutely loyal to the party chief; they cannot persuade their leaders into having a dialogue. Despite wishing for a dialogue, they consider it inappropriate to propose until their leaders says so. Politicians known for taking individual stances in both parties have either passed away or been spared of their policymaking role.”
Professor Nazrul reminds that with the election approaching, some critical issues can be given due consideration only if a dialogue takes place. “The election commission must undergo massive reformation to be acceptable to both. Strengthening the parliamentary committees and letting the opposition head some of those, forming a judicial service commission to depoliticise the judiciary, reinforcing local administration through decentralisation of power are among other concerns,” he says.
But how would the leaders talk over a cup of tea when they cannot stand the presence of one another? Political scientist Dilara Choudhury, former JU professor of Governance and Politics, wonders.
Confrontational politics has disappointed the people. Photo: Anisur Rahman
“Our leaders have been persistent in violating the norms of democracy after being elected with public support and it is difficult to get rid of this culture,” she says, “It is even easier to throw out a military dictator as there is no public support. The civil society's feeble voice is insufficient when the elected leaders become unresponsive to the norms of democracy.”
With the unbending nature unchanged, are we then a failure for democracy or is a democratic system incompatible for our unyielding politicians?
“I think our people are still unqualified for democracy,” she comments, “We will be a failed nation without democracy and our leaders are responsible for this. There is a notion of tribalism of political parties with blind followers in the society that disregards the public.”
The rising tension between the two parties particularly revolves around the BNP's demand for a caretaker government while it has been abolished during the AL's current regime. Professor Choudhury admits that there is apparently no way out if our leaders maintain rigid positions. Asked how this tension can be resolved, she observes that caretaker government is incompatible with parliamentary government system. “It's a direct affront to democracy because it derives from distrust. But we needed it as the ruling party always politicises the administration, judiciary etc. Trust is the fundamental component in democracy whereas our leaders don't trust each other. Now the opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia is not likely to trust the election commission without a caretaker government,” she says.
“Dialogue means compromise,” says Dr Akbar Ali Khan, former adviser to a caretaker government. He thinks that willingness to have a dialogue has a good public posture; the public thinks the parties are being constructive and doing the right thing. “But a dialogue will not be meaningful without two things. Both parties must realise the present situation is untenable and must be willing to compromise their positions through a dialogue,” he observes.
Dr Khan relates, “None of the political parties have a true commitment to a fair and impartial election. If they have no commitment, why would they want to have a dialogue for compromise?” he comments.
Abdul Jalil and Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan both failed to convince their leaders for a conversation. Photo: Star file
A dialogue is meant to fail without compromise. Dr Khan recounts that the dialogue between Bangabandhu and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was unsuccessful because neither were in a position to make a compromise. The Pakistani rulers were not willing to concede six-points. And there was no way the father of the nation would backtrack from the six-point demand.
Asked whether an all-party interim government can be an alternative to a caretaker government, Dr Khan admits that we cannot hold impartial elections because the political parties have always been tinkering with the election process. “All powers are in the hands of the prime minister; it doesn't matter whether five or ten members are selected from the political parties for an interim government. That's why, in 1996, the mediation did not succeed over the choice of the prime minister. In our caretaker government, the chief advisor was not interested in an impartial election. Despite our best efforts, we couldn't do anything because he had all the power in his hand.”
Dr Khan suggests solutions to overcome this impasse. “The Supreme Court suggests electing a caretaker or an all-party interim government. This can be done through constitutional amendments where the parliament members will elect non-party people as members of a caretaker government. This is not in conflict with the Supreme Court. If the president can be elected by the government, why can't the non-party caretaker government be elected by the parliament.” he asks.
Another instance of a solution comes from Dr Khan. “It can be done by changing the constitution like that of the Indian constitution. In India, a person can be appointed a minister in six months' time even if he's not a member of the parliament. You can nominate non-party persons as cabinet ministers and after three months of holding the election, they go out of power. So if the Indian constitution is valid, we can have the same sort of provision in our constitution.” he says.
“Another option is that both parties select ministers from each other for the caretaker government, which should be more acceptable to both parties. Even some form of caretaker government can be revived in consultation with the Supreme Court because they said that you can have a caretaker government for the next two terms. Proposals can be taken to the court but it seems very unlikely that the government will do it. There are a lot more options with the constitution experts, it is not unsolvable,” he adds.
Raiding the BNP headquarters and detaining opposition leaderspushed away the possibilities of a dialogue between the two parties.Photo: Anisur Rahman Dr Khan affirms that the law is not a stumbling block to form a caretaker or some other type of interim government, contrary to what the government says about the Supreme Court's judgment. Rather the government's obstinacy in not having a discussion with the opposition is the main stumbling block. “Does the government realise that a dialogue will be good for them?” he questions. A dialogue and the willingness to make compromises for the nation's greater interest seem to be the only viable solutions, according to the intelligentsia. As tension builds over various disagreements between the AL and the BNP, the nation can barely sit back and suffer, thinking - let nature take its course. The two parties definitely have their own political speculations but the recent events would suggest that those have so far served to further disappoint the people. Despite having options to end the current stalemate, it remains a 'public fantasy' that our leaders will harness their hatred towards one another now put on show for public and say, “Let's talk this over, shall we?”
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments