Why does AL-BNP resemble Fakhruddin-Moeen combo?

Fakhruddin-Moeen (F-M) bashing appears to be a favourite pastime of some who conveniently forget that at least for once the politicians had created such a situation that military intervention was impossible to avoid. BNP handled the caretaker government situation so bad that it ended up with Prof. Iajuddin as the president and the PM, a sort of a constitutional clowning rarely heard of while the AL produced street violence at an unprecedented level. Most people wanted some kind of an ending to the terrifying situation and the military intervention on 1/11was welcomed by all to end chaos. It was a relief and anybody claiming otherwise is in denial or being hypocritical.

* * *

Historical evidence shows that Bangladesh can be ruled by three parties only; the BNP, the AL and the Army. The three 'parties' generally have ruled in sequence and the quality of the three regimes rarely varies. The army has had phases when it ruled directly and then went into a civilian phase such as with the BNP and the Jatiya Party.  BNP has become more civilian over time and JP has simply crashed out as it meets neither civilian nor army political needs.

We are unlikely to have any other choices ever because if there is actually one, which new interest would the new party represent? Since all the elite interests have been served, we have moved into a phase of political stability whether we like it or not. The Fakhruddin-Moeen duo ensured that politicians can go on ruling even after having really messed things up.

* * *

While the army has intervened several times before, the Moeen takeover was different because it was not propelled by choice but a sense of survival of the army. The BNP mess of 2007 was terrible and the AL position so extreme that violence broke out. It was almost on way to become a South Asian version of Somalia. That would of course have had extreme consequences and no one would want to hire peacekeepers from Somalia/Bangladesh.

Since peacekeeping is the main source of quality income for the army, it moved in to protect its pay packet. Once in power, they of course tried to consolidate their rule. It behaved just as any other political party would. In 2007, the AL and the BNP didn't behave any different. They too wanted power and went to any length to achieve that. Then why should the army act any different?

* * *

Many people complain about repression during the F-M regime but how much more repressive is it from any of the other regimes? The parliamentary sub-committee has called the F-M due to their role in beating up Dhaka University students. We think this is very important, very necessary and should be pursued but we should not forget that the first killing of students occurred in 1973 when demonstrating students in front of the American Centre at Topkhana were shot dead.

I think it's only fair to remember that the tradition of killing and beating students is a longish one and all the parties have sustained it over the ages whether BNP, AL or the army.

* * *

Part of the resentment of the mainstream politicians is that the F-M regime went after them and did so as the public cheered. The F-M regime came after the mind boggling corruption of 'Tarique Zia regime' whose odour still hangs around us. It went after politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and all others who had corruption allegations against them. Of course the entire process was handled very ineptly and it was as much of a mess as possible but what it did was enough to make politicians feel vulnerable. They never felt this way before and that is why F-M generates anxiety like no other regime. Very few politicians have ever been tried for corruption, but that regime came close. How can one not go after their memory because that is quite an uneasy one?

* * *

Whatever may be the initial circumstances regarding its coming to power, the F-M rapidly became a standard army political regime and this charge was led by the DGFI. The arrests, humiliation and general harassment of politicians were made to get rid of the top leaders and create a negative image of civilian politicians. They went after the political parties by instigating reformist groups within the parties in an attempt to isolate the leadership and later also tried floating a few new ones.

They next tried to force both Hasina and Khaleda to quit Bangladesh and failing that tried to try them for corruption which also failed resoundingly. All of the above attempts failed proving that the military was neither competent nor grown up when it came to politics.

* * *

The biggest obstacle of our politics is that both parties believe that they can do no wrong. Our military believes in that too. Its anti-corruption drive was limited to civilians only and no army person was investigated or scrutinised let alone charged. In fact they are never done so. If there is no anti-corruption office within the military, isn't this assuming that the army is clean?  Give me a break!

On what basis is this done when we know from experience what army officers do even when running martial law regimes? Does Hasina or Khaleda think their party people are corrupt, inept or full of themselves? Nor does the army. So much like each other.

* * *

F-M duo was smarter when seeing exit doors close, they rapidly moved to transferring power to the same parties they tried to damage and if possible destroy. Power arrangements with civilian rivals ensured a better deal for all.

There is no evidence that the military cheated with the aid of the EC in 2008 elections but even if it did, backing BNP was out of the question with its huge stigma of corruption and misrule. AL was the only sensible horse to back but even without an inch of support, AL would have won the elections. BNP was at its worst in that year.

* * *

Why do we trash the F-M combo when the tripartite agreement amongst the three groups works best for all? By taking a middle space, the army doesn't have to intervene directly and can go on doing peacekeeping happily. It has accepted that the age of direct rule is over but can now tilt towards one or the other as it sees fit to serve its own interest.  They are friends and brothers of our civilian politicians. Together they keep the system going.

——————————————–

Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist and researcher.