During the 60s, election posters would highlight the candidate and the election symbol he or she was contesting for. How far we have come. The symbol and candidate take, at times, fourth place as past leaders’ photographs dominate now.
For the Awami League it’s Bangabandhu, Sheikh Hasina, and Sajeeb Wajed Joy before the candidate most of the time. For BNP it’s Ziaur Rahman, Khaleda Zia, and Tareq Rahman. It speaks volumes about the candidate -- almost unknown to the electorate, and follows the age old adage: Vote for a date tree rather than the candidate.
Yet in every interview on TV, voters will swear to vote for the candidate who has proven to be committed and honest. One wonders if they consider the bank defaulters, and those with criminal cases against them.
In the old days, more was spoken of the symbol and candidate, simply because politicians were closer to the electorate. Those days are gone. The added criteria was being a dedicated worker -- putting a shadow on the increasing number of businessmen who continued their vocation rather than spend time in their constituencies.
And there has been discontent. On both sides of the divide, there are irate electorates unhappy with the candidate offered to them, in a world where seat-sharing happens before rather than after elections.
Thankfully, the glare of coloured posters have given way to black and white ones. Less in the face, but the use of the icons continue. The Awami League officials had to intervene at one stage to impress upon that such use of icons is wrong. In the old day, icons weren’t of dubious character. The present day leader has to spend money to engage volunteers to pass out handbills and knock on each door, and that’s where the difference lies.
Money spent from personal pockets has to be recuperated from somewhere, and there’s no point guessing from where. Hasanul Huq Inu blurted it out, and earned the wrath of the pime minister when he claimed MPs and union leaders pilfered both grants and food grains meant for the ultra poor. That he was truthful is beyond debate. The argument is so strong that not everyone can be painted with the same brush.
Of interest is the resurgence of the foreign icon -- the Lenins and Stalins revered by the left wing parties. With the passage of time, and the decadence of the left, these icons have lost relevance, simply because the left has no longer upheld the ideals they had.
Icons were icons because they didn’t indulge in such pettiness. That’s why today’s politician has to depend on their image instead of themselves. Fie, I say!
Mahmudur Rahman is a writer, columnist, broadcaster, and communications specialist.
