The excitement is finally here. Fears that the election may not be participatory, doubts that opposition parties would take part in an election overseen by the incumbent AL government, its appointed election commission and the bureaucracy have dissipated.
Following the surprise alliance (Jatiya Oikya Front), apparently in the making for months, that links major opposition parties with some credible figureheads, many are optimistic that there will be a contest. Five years ago, the main opposition BNP refused to take part, asserting no fair election could happen unless a neutral administration conducted the polls.
Since then, BNP has been tormented, with its key leaders behind bars or harassed through court cases filed across the country. BNP’s main political ally, Jamaat-e-Islami, has been decimated, with its first-tier leaders hanged for their involvement in war crimes during 1971.
Claims that police are arresting opposition party members in a pre-election drive are being reported in national dailies. A draconian Information and Communication Technology Act is in place to lock up anyone with views not those of the government.
Yet, such actions are nothing new for any reigning Bangladeshi government -- always wanting to perpetuate its rule. That opposition parties are contesting -- they may even have an outside chance of winning it -- lightens up the milieu.
What about the voters? What options do they face on polling day? As far as independent institutions and protection of individual rights are concerned -- the cornerstones of a liberal democratic society -- neither the recent performance of AL nor the past actions of BNP are assuring.
While AL has delivered on a number of election commitments -- most notably the trials of war criminals -- the overall situation, especially matters of law and order, have deteriorated. Brutal attacks on minorities, writers, newspapers, publishers, and ordinary people have marred this term of the government. Assassins were able to carry out a killing spree in broad daylight without being apprehended. In a startling cyber heist, millions evaporated from the central bank and many more millions have been pillaged from other banks.
Worse still, no one has been held accountable.
The economy, however, is humming along, with the GDP growth staying well above 5% for over a decade. More people are out of poverty, more people have access to clean water, shelter, and health services, more children are enrolled in schools, and more women are participating in economic activities.
RMG and expatriate labourers remain the backbone of the economy as a thriving lower-middle class emerges. The government has also received accolades from international communities for its ongoing policies accommodating over a million Rohingya -- a severely oppressed minority group from neighbouring Myanmar.
Such stellar economic growth and laudable humanitarian efforts cannot hide gross violations of the government’s remit, however. It has snuffed out any hint of opposition and smothered criticism with menace. It has steadfastly curbed free speech. The press is pushed to surrender independent, factual, and objective reporting, and to toe the party line.
The parliament showcased a vile authoritarian rule akin to those suffered in the late 70s and throughout the 80s, merely enacting the leader’s whims. While past oppositions walked out or stayed away from parliament in frustration, there was no opposition in parliament this time.
Alas, BNP too has no better record governing in a civil and democratic fashion. Leaving voters unconfident.
Why would the opposition be good or better than the current government? What is being offered by the opposition? In most developing nations, parties and leaders vying for power are promising the obvious -- better accountability, transparency, increased initiatives for the poor, better health and education measures -- in short, promising a far rosier picture than that of their fellow contestants.
Though, they often fall well short of delivering on such promises.
Some are heartened that veteran leaders of the opposition alliance have risked a lot to save the nation, to restore democracy, to bring participatory politics back. If they win there would be significant constitutional and administrative reforms for the better, as they approach the end of their careers with nothing else to achieve but legacies.
True that these wise, experienced, elderly leaders could have used their stature and influence to secure comfortable retirement -- but many of them are professional politicians, doing politics is, perhaps, what’s in their blood. In fact, most of the political figures in Bangladesh have been in the arena for decades, using political patronage for personal gain.
Can voters expect constructive, tolerant actions from them? I doubt it. Just imagine, how will these politicians set aside their personal vendettas, after suffering gravely over the last decade? Will they be able to implement, for example, the proposed separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, or the two-term limit for PMs?
What exact differences will they bring to their government’s relationship with other vital powers -- the armed forces, the business elites, and the volatile yet strategic geo-politics being played in our neighbourhood by foreign superpowers?
Successive governments have turned out to be exceedingly more authoritarian and innovatively ruthless than their predecessors. Then why would a change of the government be any good?
The optimist’s view is that key Oikya Front alliance leaders hold similar antipathy towards the exiled BNP scion (likely to assume the most prominent position, should the alliance win) as the current government. Therefore, they will get on with significant reforms to change the constitution so as to stop the current winner-takes-all situation before a possible return of the scion.
Another popular consensus is that a change in government would be good for restoring the nation’s democratic progress. Why is democracy good? Again, accepted understanding is that, in the long run, democratic governance yields better outcomes as democratic processes tend to be inclusive, durable, and considerate to the desires of the population.
Resolute animosity, overpowering vindictiveness, and, above all, ill-will poison relations between the two main parties, trickling down to their grass-roots supporters, with neither party able to move on. Moreover, this acerbity is used to generate political currency, which party diehards accentuate and use to prepare the next generations of party affiliates.
This gnaws away at any prospects of effective democracy, a true reproach to idealists and patriots of all kinds.
As elsewhere in the developing world, our economic growth is coming at significant environmental cost (think of the adverse effects of coal-based power plants), and it is unequal -- the lion’s share of growth profits does not reach the workers and seldom improves the revenue base of the government. However, this is exactly where strong governance is needed: To ensure that investments, infrastructure, and business initiatives are transparently reviewed, analyzed, and administered.
Even a quasi-functional democracy will have to have independent institutions (such as the judiciary or the bureaucracy), the protection of individual rights (including for those opposed to the government), and public policy supported by the will of the majority.
Sadly, such expectations seem fanciful at the moment.
Qamrul Huda is a freelance contributor.