Over the years, hartals – (forced) shutdowns – have emerged as an integral part of our political culture and history. After a brief hiatus due to Pahela Baisakh festivities, the 18-party opposition coalition led by BNP enforced a 36-hour hartal from April 23 demanding the release of its incarcerated leaders. The strike was withdrawn on the second day in the wake of the Savar tragedy, but not before violence led to the death of a 14-year-old boy. Another hartal was called for May 2 protesting the collapse of the building, but good sense prevailed upon the opposition to withdraw it for humanitarian reasons.
The nation is facing an unsolicited long weekend with dawn-to-dusk hartals on May 7 and 8. The May 12 hartal called by Hefazat-e-Islam, a recently emerged radical group, was withdrawn for the free slot to be immediately taken up Jamaat-e-Islami. In fact, the blockade called by Hefazat on May 5 was effectively a hartal. There is no reason to believe we have seen the last hartals for the time being. In fact, ‘tis the season for hartals – the final year of the government – and the worst is yet to come. As the country braces for more shutdowns amidst growing political tension in coming months, it is time to rethink the culture of hartals plaguing our nascent democracy.
Historical legacy?
Hartals have often been seen as an unavoidable legacy of the struggle for democracy in Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is no doubt that hartals served the purpose of resistance in mass movements against autocratic regimes historically, but the irony is that the number of shutdowns has in fact increased after the restoration of democracy. The Awami League (AL) and BNP have collectively called for a total of 498 hartals (and counting) since 1991, in comparison to 67 from 1947-70 and 108 from 1971-1990. Clearly, hartals have little to do with dictatorships.
Forced captivity
Though hartals are rooted in Gandhi’s non-violent movement, strikes today are anything but peaceful and voluntary. Today, hartals are largely involuntary shutdowns enforced by violence, coercion and intimidation that take advantage of a sense of insecurity amongst the people. The truth is most of us remain confined indoors more out of fear rather than any sense of solidarity with parties declaring these hartals. Forced captivity does not appear to be the best public relations exercise for a political party. In fact, there is little conventional wisdom in calling increasingly unpopular strikes and exploiting a sense of insecurity amongst the people.
Economic misfortune
Hartals continue unabated despite the detrimental impacts on investor confidence, the employment rate, export volume and trade competitiveness. A study of the United Nations Development Program in 2005 found three to four percent of annual GDP was lost due to hartals in the 1990s, while the Dhaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2013) revealed that the economy incurs a loss of Tk1.600bn ($200m) or 0.2% of GDP per day because of hartals. This figure does not include the value of public and private property damaged by rampant violence related to strikes.
Though hartals are called against the government, in reality shutdowns hurt the private sector, which is increasingly intertwined with the global economy and employing millions of people. The ready-made garments sector, the lifeline of our economy, stands particularly vulnerable. The Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association and Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association calculated export orders worth $500m were lost in the apparel sector alone during the March 27-28 hartal.
Economists say hartals also lead to price hikes causing additional suffering of lower and middle income groups due to disruptions in the supply chain. All this begs the question of how long a developing country like Bangladesh can afford hartals?
Social harm
Hartals cause immense suffering for society as a whole. Take for example, education. Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School Certificate students have been postponed causing uncertainty for students, parents and teachers. O-Level and A-Level students are forced to appear for their exams in the dead of the night, clearly not the ideal ambiance for academic performance. Similar disruptions in public and private universities lead to infamous “session jams” or incomplete syllabi. The question arises as to why the next generation has to suffer for the follies of its politicians?
The hartal ritual
Following a day of involuntary confinement, the hartal ritual involves a well-choreographed charade of the opposition congratulating the nation for observing the strike and the government felicitating us for rejecting it. In reality, both are travesties of the truth: neither do we accept hartals out of will nor do we have the luxury of defying it. It would have been a different case if we had police escorts like our public officials to carry on with our day-to-day lives.
Irrespective of whether the AL or BNP is in government or opposition, the governing party condemns hartals while the opposition party espouses them. Both parties change their respective positions on hartals once every five years for expediency and convenience. The players change, but the farce endures. In recent years, we have also seen innovation in hartals with the governing party selectively endorsing shutdowns by like-minded parties. In effect, the government has wilfully compromised the rights of its citizens by supporting such hartals. Sadly, national interest is increasingly an after-thought in this no-holds barred power game between the political parties.
Democratic right?
The million dollar question, figuratively and literally, is whether hartals can be a democratic right in today’s context? While hartals are theoretically legal under Article 37, 38 and 39 (1) (2) guaranteeing freedom of thought, conscience, association and assembly, the fact remains its practical application today outright contravenes the rights to freedom of movement, protection of law, life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 31, 32 and 36 of the Bangladesh Constitution. Given the coercive nature of recent hartals, they are anything but constitutional or democratic. Hartal-related violence is also a crime punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (2009) and Public Security Act (2000).
Exercise in futility?
It is evident that calling hartals has increasingly become an exercise in futility due to overuse, abuse and misuse over the last two decades. Precedence shows strikes rarely hurt the government of the day – hartals have not forced any government in the recent past to acquiesce to demands or resign even a day before the end of their term. The 1991, 1996 and 2001 governments completed their terms unhindered by recurrent hartals. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that the current AL government would be pressurised by strikes. Even the BNP was forced to resign after the 1996 one-party election is attributable more to the withdrawal of support from civil servants rather than hartals.
The silver lining is that hartals have become increasingly redundant in the public eye. In a positive sign of conscious citizens exercising their democratic and constitutional rights, we have seen hartals being defied more than ever. Despite intimidation, we see more and more people keeping their businesses open or driving their vehicles during hartals. There are even reports of occasional traffic jams during hartals, something unthinkable even a few years back. This is a message to our politicians that they need to consider more appropriate political tools suited to our times, yet this message seems to be falling on deaf ears.
Competition of numbers
Neither the AL nor BNP has a legitimate right to denounce hartals. After all, both parties have used strikes when it suited their political interests at the cost of economic growth and public security. On one hand, the AL declared 176 and 130 hartals from 1991-1996 and 2001-2006 respectively (a total of 306 days), while on the other hand, the BNP enforced 59 and 31 hartals from 1996-2001 and 2009 - to date respectively (a total of 90 days and counting). While the AL is far ahead in calling hartals in aggregate, the BNP does not want to fall behind with fourteen hartals in the last four months alone, not to mention extending support to strikes by other reactionary forces.
Reforms: Post-1/11 anathema?
Despite hartals being increasingly defied, there is no way to underestimate the catastrophic economic and social impacts of hartals. The integrated nature of the economy and scale of violence in recent hartals have made shutdowns more suicidal for the nation than ever. Though there is little rationale behind calling hartals, such shutdowns are here to stay until we see substantive reforms in our political culture and democratic institutions.
Our return to democracy has been characterized by the dysfunctional relationship, winner-takes-all mindset and zero-sum confrontation between the AL and BNP that is inconsistent with democratic traditions and principles. Reforms have become an anathema – almost a taboo word – for both political parties following the 1/11 changeover, but there is no alternative to overturning this self-destructive political culture for the survival of democracy.
Current impasse
To be fair, the BNP was fairly restrained in calling hartals during the first three years of the AL government. However, the looming uncertainty over the next general election has increased political hostility and hartals. Both sides are in a stand-off over the next general election scheduled for early 2014. The government is adamant not to hand over the reins of power to an unelected regime that may lead to another unconstitutional takeover, while the opposition remains steadfast in boycotting elections held under a partisan administration. The BNP aims to realize its demand for restoration of a non-party election administration by calling more hartals during the last eight months of the AL government.
In the midst of this political deadlock, there are legitimate concerns that Jamaat, a key member of the opposition coalition, is adding fuel to fire for its own agenda to thwart the War Crimes Trial. Similarly, we have seen radical groups like Hefazat espousing a theocratic and undemocratic agenda to fish in troubled waters. There is no doubt that these radical groups are taking advantage of the political schism between the AL and BNP for their self-serving agenda that does not serve the purpose of either of the two main political parties.
Dialogue, not hartals
The key to resolving the current impasse is for a consensus in administering the next general election that will help the nation come out of the destructive cycle of hartals and prevent fringe extremist groups from taking advantage of the political divide between the two mainstream parties.
This is easier said than done, but the prospect is not as bleak as it seems. In the recent statement withdrawing the May 2 hartal, the main opposition party has extended an olive branch to the government. The Leader of the Opposition explicitly requested the prime minister to take an initiative for a dialogue on establishing a non-party neutral administration for the next general election. The PM responded positively, while the AL Secretary General announced a formal letter will be issued inviting the opposition to the negotiating table.
Though this positive development has been partially overturned by the 48-hour ultimatum issued by the Leader of the Opposition, there is still hope for a consensus. It is noteworthy that the opposition has refrained from using the terminology of “caretaker” government, while the government has proposed an all-party administration. There are still differences, but the growing flexibility allows some room for compromise and consensus in our national interest.
A refined model and long run
Instead of hartals, both the AL and BNP have to explore different options for an interim government acceptable to both sides. The fact is that the formerly utilised model of caretaker government failed to satisfy both AL and BNP in holding acceptable elections, as evident from the reaction of both sides following the last four general elections. Moreover, the earlier model left an unsavoury aftertaste of politicising the judiciary and civil society.
Bipartisan pragmatism can lead to a refined model that can plug previous loopholes, address concerns of both sides and most importantly, deliver a free and fair election with the participation of all parties. For this, both mainstream parties need to remain vigilant against fringe extremist groups motivated to prolong the political impasse for their self-seeking purposes at the cost of national interest.
While a dialogue can resolve the current impasse and avoid hartals, long-run political dispute resolution requires reform for strengthening of the national parliament. This includes re-examining the constitutional prohibitions that prevent lawmakers from voting across party lines, thereby removing the incentive of minority parties to introduce or deliberate on legislations.
Tyranny of hartals
There is nothing democratic about forced shutdowns and subjecting ordinary citizens to intimidation and compromising national interest. It is imperative for both the AL and BNP to rethink the negative political culture that has led to hartals, but this requires political maturity and foresight on both sides.
In our current predicament, there is no doubt that BNP has failed to act responsibly by blatantly supporting fringe extremist groups. However, the AL is not helping either by arresting the top leadership of the main opposition party on flimsy trumped-up charges. If the government continues to deny legitimate political space and a level-playing field for the opposition, it would be impossible for us to come out of the quagmire of hartals.
Our political leadership needs to salvage our democracy from the hangovers of yesteryear. We need to wake up to the fact that the political culture of agun (fire) and rokto (blood) epitomised by hartals is not in vogue anymore. Sustained public confidence in democracy will be dependent on our success in reinventing our political culture, including rescinding hartals that have an expression of tyranny and democracy. Our political parties, particularly the opposition of the day, should get the message that the rights of the majority cannot be compromised in the name of hartals any longer.
Ifti Rashid is a political and security analyst, currently a PhD candidate in Monash University, Australia, based in the Monash Asia Institute.