It is an interesting question and an amusing thought. Our leader has thrown up this question as an answer to the suggestion made by the US Ambassador that the feuding political parties in the current political impasse in the country hold unconditional dialogue to dial down the ever-increasing political heat in the country.
The suggestion was probably made because the months-long demand by the opposition for holding the upcoming general elections be held by a neutral caretaker government did not receive any traction with the government. The two sides have since been on two ends of the political spectrum -- the opposition has stuck to its demand for a neutral government. The government party, on the other hand, has remained glued to its position that there is no place for a caretaker government according to the constitution (amended in 2011).
Are the politics in the US and Bangladesh comparable? Is there a political stalemate in the US parallel to that now obtained in Bangladesh? More importantly are President Biden and ex-President Donald Trump fighting with each other for Presidential office, or are they contesting in any elections?
For starters, Donald Trump is not even a candidate for the Presidential elections which are not due until November 2024. He has to wait for a series of processes for his party’s nomination and win the nomination before he can enter the Presidential elections. As for President Biden, he will also enter the Presidential election race next year should his party nominate him again (and probably will). And in Presidential elections in the US, the candidates debate one another in a public forum to win voters for themselves. They do not engage in dialogues to resolve disputes. They do it through debates. For now, Donald Trump is busy defending himself in courts in two criminal cases (including one for alleged insurrection) and a civil case of fraud. His fights are for legal problems, not political. These legal cases are not for President Biden to resolve.
Even if we assume that the suggestion for a Biden-Trump dialogue was made in jest and not earnest, we have to hark back to the root of the problem, which emanates from our ongoing political crisis that has brought the two feuding parties to the streets. From the time the opposition’s demand for a neutral government surfaced, there have been signs that the upcoming elections may face stormy weather unless there are some compromises on both sides.
Unfortunately, instead of reducing the gaps between the opposing forces, the two sides hardened their positions more and more as the election period drew nearer. The government position became sterner as external forces jumped into the fray calling for a fair and transparent election process, asking for greater freedom in expression of speech, and less abuse of human rights. The situation was aggravated for the government when the United States announced visa restrictions threatening that people associated with impeding the fair and free elections and abusing human rights would be denied visa to enter the States.
This by itself should not have been viewed as a sanction that the US normally imposes against countries which are considered inimical by that country. But unfortunately, the US visa policy was received by the powers in Bangladesh in a similar vein as economic sanctions and the reaction was mixed with fear and suspicion. While some officials of the government veiled their fear with nonchalance, others tried to deflect this toward the opposition claiming that the restrictions applied to the opposition leaders because of their legacy of election violence. But paradoxically the government also slowed down its policy of harassment of the opposition, and tried to demonstrate to the outside world, particularly the US, that it is serious in maintaining human rights and transparency in elections. In fact, a few of the local elections appeared to be relatively free of political violence and egregious conduct of law enforcement agencies.
All of this, however, was like hitting the pause button to give the opposition time to rethink its position on participating in the general elections. For a time, we also thought that the government might open a dialogue with the opposition for a compromise on the election process and a mutually acceptable authority which will hold the elections. But if there was any glimmer of hope on the kid glove approach of the government in holding a few violence free municipal elections, the government leader’s rhetoric on no compromise with the opposition reinforced the latter’s hardline position to shun the elections without a neutral government. As days passed each side coagulated on their respective stands and demands leading to the first open confrontation late this month when mayhem was let loose.
Time and again people of Bangladesh have witnessed powers that rise to thwart people’s wishes to have a government that respects people's rights for freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and good governance. Transparency in government actions, be they for elections or for governance in day-to-day activities, is what people desire. In the last 50-plus years of our existence we have witnessed several attempts to take these rights away from people and establish authoritarian governments which undermine democratic rules in the name of saving the country from an unseen enemy. Unfortunately, some of these attempts did succeed and we had to go through decades of autocratic rule. We emerged from these rules to reestablish democratic governments, but only when people were free to choose their representatives in a peaceful and non-threatening environment.
When other countries call upon us to observe human rights and ensure a peaceful, non-violent environment to hold elections, they do so because they do not want to see a country of 180 million decimated by intransigence of political parties. A dialogue between feuding parties can avoid a catastrophe that is looming in the sky. They see it and advise us as friends. Our political situation is not even remotely similar to what is happening in more developed countries. A Biden-Trump dialogue for a non-existent dispute is not our model.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.