For the purpose of this piece, let me pretend as if I am not insulted gravely by everyone in the world telling us how to conduct an election. Let me for a moment forget how infinitely puny, petty, and self-destructive we look to an external audience. I am particularly perplexed about the sudden drum beat around the world regarding our domestic political discourse.
Let me not even address the New York Times’s most uninformed and childish editorial suggestions recently, about sanctions being levied on Bangladesh related to our present set of political problems.
Look, I don’t underestimate that the present situation is a serious problem that needs addressing, but I do not believe for a moment that we are totally impotent to resolve it ourselves. Resolution to any problem lies in facing what makes it a problem in the first place.
That often means seeing circumstances to their bitter realisations without interruption. In this instance, that means, to see how far the opposition will go in its thirst for power and how hard the incumbent grabs on to it.
Everyone is watching closely what is happening and when push comes to vote, they will judge what is right and what is wrong. In a one-sided election, that will mean not going to the booth as an ultimate rejection of political rhetoric and if an all party participatory election is held, (one can only dream) the Bangladeshi people will choose, like in many instances before, the inept leaders that best suits their swinging moods.
Besides, if our voting right, the only say we have in our fate as a people every half a decade, is truly taken away, the people, I believe, will resolve to fight such a move in great numbers without a doubt.
The opposition in that scenario wouldn’t have to resort to the desperate measures of terrorising common people in the way they are today. People don’t care about what’s going on beyond being safe and going about their daily chores because they know they will have a chance to express their discontent in the booths come January 5 or boycott the polls altogether.
All the last minute shuttle diplomats, including Mr Taranco must acknowledge that reality. We are a disunited nation of people. There are serious divisions rooted in decades of bloodletting but that we have major consensus on one issue from every side excluding the opposition, that maiming of innocents must cease. If the UN has to help broker anything, there must be only one demand: All violence must stop.
That demand must not be contingent on anything else. The “hop on, hop off” attempts of world leaders and their representatives coming to Bangladesh to help a situation will do any real measurable good, if that benchmark is the only goal.
Threats, warnings and coercions to have dialogue with a petulant opposition, who have now voluntarily boycotted an election, are not going to bear any fruit because it will seem too inclusive of those who are perpetrating acts of terrorism on the people of Bangladesh on purpose and hence the discussions will not happen in good faith and will be futile.
Unless the opposition publicly commits to renounce violence, they should not be party to any dialogue at all. Bending backwards cannot be a legitimate recommendation.
For the UN, US, India, UK and Europe, the advisable call right now would be to under the present circumstances, ask emphatically for violence to cease, to invite all parties to join the January 5 elections and if such a deal were to be brokered, to ask the EC to accommodate such a move and assist the government to have an internationally monitored elections by January 24, 2014, if so invited.
Under our present legal framework, if something is problematic and unacceptable than to recommend, for appropriate changes be made by any future government. If anything else is demanded, proposed or coerced, that would be intervening in the internal politics far beyond the acceptable levels that they have already done within our political landscape.
We all must be alert to the ramifications of belittling democracy to a level where it is seen only to function with the assistance and interference of foreign powers. That is a most dangerous and irresponsible perception to set, and will set a preposterous precedent that we will revert to every five years without working hard amongst ourselves to reach some sort of an agreement.
Finding a solution to this is part of our democratic development that we need to work out ourselves. Addressing foreign insecurities and interests must remain a distant second to our journey as a democratic nation. So feel free to help Mr Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, but tread cautiously because you may be negatively interfering in the natural course of things.