Bangla is a beautiful language. This language is the foundation of Bangladesh’s nationalism, independence, and democracy. Bangladeshis have been oppressed; they have fought and have even been killed to use their language. Language, and its use, is the backbone of the nation, state, and society. And Bangalis use it. Being a guest in this country, I have experienced the richness of the Bangladeshi people in their use of the language.
Bangladeshis -- give them the slightest opportunity for an interesting debate and the words are infinite, the conversation often lasting for hours. Debate and dialogue, also hostile, are integral parts of Bangladesh’s social culture -- adda as its most basic and maybe most important form. It is an everyday practice of a democratic culture that makes and shapes national identity.
However, this has paradoxically changed in the course of democratic rule and government. The silencing of voices and ideas has gradually seeped into the public arena. It is a gradual process that has taken place over the last 20 years, more or less intentional and knowing, centred around the Iconomic establishment of business and politics.
At the time of autocracy, voice and dissent were part and parcel of the political vocabulary. This somehow appears to have changed with the re-introduction of democracy. Democracy and the growth of the market economy initiated a process that, over the course of time, has silenced voice and debate -- more or less intentionally.
Two factors are important in this development: Firstly, increasingly intensified political rivalry and confrontation, and secondly, the capitalisation of politics through the conflation of business and political interests. Both are at play during the same time.
The way in which political discourse has developed over the years has simplified the political vocabulary, and to a certain extent, defined its use in the public domain. It is a discourse and vocabulary closely connected to the rivalry between the major political parties and their leaders.
This rivalry not only exists on and maintains a vocabulary of competition about who loves the country the most, but also circumscribes all forms of public and political discourse. As a shared discourse in the field of politics, it defines and determines how to see and understand the social world. As such, it defines the way we speak, and more importantly, the way we think and make the world around us intelligible.
It makes some voices heard and others not. Some words can be said and others are passed over. Some issues can be addressed and others are ignored. Some are recognised as legitimate voices, others are not to be seen or heard.
This categorisation of right and wrong is even linked up to the parliamentary system where members win their seats in head-to-head races, and upon victory have to abide by the party-line -- it is illegal to dissent or diverge, effectively preventing debate in parliament and eradicating critique within the parties.
When the Iconomic establishment grew, as politics and business increasingly conflated after the fall of Ershad, a new rationality developed within party politics. Anywhere in the world, party politics works on a rationality of self-interest in the competition for leadership. The aim is to represent voters, ideologies, or greater interests, and exercise political decision-making power or influence through elections and parliament or other platforms.
In Bangladesh, the conflation of business and politics meant that a new rationality of interest promulgated in the political domain. Increasing liberalisation and growth of the market meant that businesses became very influential in politics, initially through the economy but later via the public domain. Businessmen not just entered party politics but also captured and expanded popular media to secure their interest.
This is not uncommon in the global scene, or even inherently bad. However, when it is combined with political power, it is problematic. It risks an increasing silencing of opinions and voices. Berlusconi is a well-known example.
Silencing works both unintentionally and intentionally, by which certain themes and topics become off-limits for critique and debate. Some issues are outside the intelligible: The things we don’t know, we don’t see or hear.
So far, most people continue to find ways to be informed and discuss current issues through their social and occupational networks, but in the future, the effects of silencing, lack of information, and critical debate, might prevent you from keeping the Iconomic establishments accountable. Openness and trust are the indicators of robust democracies.
If open dialogue completely disappears, it affects not just current politics, but the very foundation of this society. With the absence of open dialogue, debate, and critique, the youth cannot attain or play the expected active and engaged roles in developing the future of Bangladesh. And it might become a challenge to nurture and advance the vibrant democratic culture of political participation.
If you are silenced, how can you sustain your national cultural identity and advance democratic thinking and practice?