Politics used to be a source of inspiration. It used to be a matter of avid interest. Political figures drew crowds in the thousands. People thronged to listen to their leaders speak. There was a sense that politics played a significant role in materialising their dreams and aspirations.
Indeed, it was politics that got the 70 million people of the then East Pakistan to rally behind the Awami League and extend their support. Reports, pictures and whatever television footage is available testify that the public came to listen to the politicians speak and many responded to their calls without doubting them.
Historian, columnist and political commentator Afsan Chowdhury agrees. “The year 1971 was the supreme point of people’s hopes and aspirations. Afterwards, it became the starting point of frustration and people stopped expecting much from the political leadership.”
The political leadership appeared to be far more sincere and dedicated to the popular cause too.
Popular movements, starting with the Language Movement of 1952 and leading up to the Liberation War, were in essence enduring political campaigns that culminated in Bangladesh’s independence.
This began to change gradually as politics became a tool to usurp power. The sanctity of parliament eroded with ruling parties abusing their mandate to turn Bangladesh into a virtual dictatorship. Trust in the political process was eroded as military dictators installed themselves as absolute rulers.
Former BNP whip and labour leader Ashraf Hossain says: “Democracy takes shape through trial and error but that has not happened since the inception of Bangladesh in 1971.”
Eminent political researcher Rounaq Jahan points to the failure of building institutions. “Our main problem since the beginning has been that we have not paid much attention to the challenge of institutionalising democracy. During our foundation period we did not install democratic institutions and practices which could have fostered a rule-based system. Instead, we turned to charismatic leadership to hold us together.”
Even after the apparent restoration of democracy in 1991 there was little visible change in the culture of nepotism and insincerity that appeared to have subsumed politics in general.
Businessmen, bureaucrats and former army chiefs made their way into the party leadership on either side of the political divide, decreasing the influence of dedicated politicians who aspired to rise through the ranks.
Former chief election commissioner ATM Shamsul Huda points out that while voter turnout since then has been impressive at 70%, the political leadership has failed to uphold people’s hopes and expectations.
“That is what drives people to reject the incumbents. Our voters are very conscious. It is not the failure of our people; it is the failure of the political leadership. People have been losing interest in constitutional bodies including the Election Commission because of this,” he says.
Afsan Chowdhury says the level of a country’s democracy can be gauged from the extent of democratic practices within the parties of that country. “As there is no politics within the parties here, lateral entry is certain.”
Rounaq Jahan explains how politics fell into deep water soon after independence. “We shifted from a multi-party parliamentary system to a one-party presidential system. The charismatic leader on whom we all depended was assassinated and the country fell under military rule.”
She says both the BNP and the Jatiya Party were formed and nurtured by military dictators through state patronage. “They used a carrot and stick policy to divide and marginalise the opposition and win supporters. Unfortunately, our elected political leaders have found it convenient to continue with this practice begun by the military rulers.”
The practice of co-opting rich businessmen and civil and military bureaucrats into party the leadership goes on, she concludes.
Political scientist Ataur Rahman says: “Those who have mastered the art of consolidating state power have gotten promoted in the political parties and the dedicated, experienced and seasoned political leadership have been ignored.”
Ashraf Hossain, who was expelled from the BNP for vocally opposing Tarique Rahman’s sudden promotion to a high party position, says: “Political leadership surrendered to money and power and deviated from political ideology and spirit. That is why uneducated, incompetent people are becoming lawmakers.”
All agree that politics nowadays has little to do with the people’s welfare. The object of politics is no longer the aspirations of the people; it is about the aspirations of the parties.
Afsan Chowdhury says: “There is no politics now. People do not have expectations from politicians. Because the benefit of liberation went to powerful men, the middle class suffered severely. So, how can there be hopes and aspirations?”
Ashraf says: “Political leadership has completely failed to uphold people’s hopes and aspirations because of their greed for power, lack of foresight and divisions.”
According to Ataur Rahman, there have been many achievements but not so many in politics. “Earlier, politics was about serving the people. But those values have been lost.”
Rounaq Jahan says: “Forty-four years ago when we started our journey as a newly independent state, we regarded politics as a solution to our problems and not as an obstacle to our progress.
“I believe people are still interested in seeing a qualitative change in our political culture. They want to see an end to current practices wherein politics is used to build personal authority and fortunes.”
