Can 2015 be better than ’14 or ’13?

Afsan Chowdhury
Published : 7 Jan 2015, 08:38 PM
Updated : 7 Jan 2015, 08:38 PM

On January 5 Awami League showed just how strong it was and that there is effectively only one political party in Bangladesh. Its opponent or what was once its opponent, BNP, who had called for holding rallies in protest of the present regime on that day and to drum up support for its proposal to hold new elections, were left looking like a fish on dry land. It flapped and twisted around but it had no impact. Barring a few places where things heated up for a few hours, nothing even flared up as the streets were under the total control of the AL. To most observers, the sight of a Khaleda Zia unable to get out of "police protection" was perhaps the ultimate symbol of a has-been political party. Even the famous mastans of the BNP were left out in the cold and the AL mastans held sway. The situation was in many ways far greater in impact than even the January 5 election in which the AL romped through. There is more or less only one party that matters in Bangladesh and that is not the BNP. So was it a big gain in political terms or was it a victory in other areas we are not familiar with. But clearly, the people and politics remains distant even after such a massive show of force.

****

Bangladesh is in a straight line for socio-economic progress but mired in political mud piles. No matter what happens we seem to be unable to extricate ourselves from this quagmire so political progress is not taking place. In fact, governance has not been an objective of any political developments and that is perhaps why our achievement in politics is not high. However, politics is conducted to gain power and in that case it has been a successful. Our gains in using politics to achieve personal or party gains have been high but the distance between the political parties and the people have also increased creating a politics for the party but not for the state.
****

Is the January 5 election of 2014 the root of all problems or is it a symptom of a problem that goes way back in time? The 15th amendment did away with the caretaker system of holding elections under a non-party government which came into being after the 1990 upsurge which overthrew Ershad leaving no one in power. It's a system that was the product of lack of trust amongst the politicians of Bangladesh and a way of overcoming obstacles to come to power.

It was not a constitutional reform or a necessary intervention but a device of convenience for political parties who had not reached political maturity. It was a tool to buy the politicians' needed time so that they could settle their differences and behave like grownups but it never happened. What the 15th amendment did was to assume that the politicians had indeed grown up and was ready act as political adults when in reality things hadn't changed much. It's not the amendment that is a problem, it's those who contest elections under it that are.

****

What was Begum Zia thinking when she decided to boycott the elections and call on the people to resist it? Almost nobody did and whatever small numbers there might have been were blotted out by the more noticeable actions of the Jamaat-led agitation against the ICT verdicts. BNP's image has suffered much for this association. What was once a great advantage to BNP during its foundational days has now become its greatest public relations nightmare. Its affinity with JI has cost a lot of supporters and created a vulnerability which the BNP has not been able to overcome.

That the party was cut off from reality was best reflected in its electoral boycott. Not only didn't people care whether it was in the fray or not, they lost more ground then they ever did since its birth. The mother and son alliance has severely damaged if not permanently what the father had built. BNP thought that people would rush in and hold Begum Zia aloft and declare a revolutionary victory. This was delusional thinking and the result has been a depletion of BNP like never before. BNP is no longer a force and the drama they have gone through shows how weak they are organizationally. Given the clout displayed by the AL in cowing down BNP, it's ironic that BNP is largely responsible for its present state. It not only failed to read the situation, it also failed to know that without the allure of power BNP supporters can't go on for long. No one can say if its downward spiral can ever be controlled.

*****

But what now for the AL? It faces the daunting prospect of ruling the country without any opposition. It may sound sweet to the supporters of AL but one party rule, de facto or de jure is not a good healthy place to be in. The AL realises this, and perhaps that's why, it is pushing JP to look more like a real opposition. It's an absurd proposition because the JP is till date a part of the government. Even if JP does pretend to be the opposition, the fact remains that this party is not in a position to provide the check and balance component in the system which is essential for political development.

So now we have entered unknown waters. The political system is not working and that is why the AL-BNP conflict is probably not as important since it can't lead to any solutions. BNP's 7-point proposal is about its own power grabbing options and the AL strategy is about continuation of their rule.

So politics by itself matters less than power. Bangladeshi politicians have no experience in sustained politics, though they have much of being in power. In that game, BNP for the moment has been trounced but while that in the short run may make AL happy but the longer term may create difficulties that are unexpected now. It would have been best if healthy politics survived. Participation is a natural ingredient for stability and that for the moment is missing.