Richard Feynman, the famous American theoretical physicist, who contributed significantly to the most counterintuitive and paradoxical branch of physics, ie quantum mechanics, once famously acknowledged that despite being considered a leading pundit of the discipline and an expert on the subject for years, he hardly ever felt he could understand it well.
The reader should not make the mistake of assuming it is Feynman’s humility: his statement was, as would be clear to those who know a bit about the peculiarity of quantum mechanics, inspired by a very genuine perception which even veteran physicists like him experience.
Such is the eerie mystery of the subject. Even though politics, especially Bangladeshi politics, could hardly be considered to be as obscure as quantum mechanics, just like Feynman, many of our politicians seem to have lost their very understanding of political science, even though they do not possess Feynman’s candor to confess their ignorance.
Some would very rightly say that most of them never had any understanding of it in the first place, making it impossible for them to lose it anyway.
Why else would some of the politicians try to threaten one another saying they would “decide it on the streets”? If I heard it right, on the news on TV, more than once this very terrorising and sentimental threat has been uttered by some of the gladiators of our political arena in the recent past.
The exact wording might have been different in different cases, but both the major political parties seem to be getting ready not just for a fisticuff but a conflict which may involve weapons possession which do not befit political activists but terrorists.
The present political situation can very well be compared to a dormant volcano generating fear in the hearts of people who are uncertain about when the eruption would take place but the time may very well be imminent.
There would have been no surprise at the political parties’ affinity to pugnacity had they learnt to be careful about not using the word “democracy” so approvingly when microphones are held before them. The ironic fact is that they do not seem to understand even the rudimentary facts about democracy.
Otherwise, why would they summon their street fighters instead of asking people to give them a verdict about the present situation? No, I am not referring to holding an election to find out which political party they prefer.
Why can a poll not be arranged to ask people whether they want a politically neutral authority to arrange elections or not? That is indubitably the most democratic way of settling it, is it not? Democracy is all about letting people choose.
So if the nation is decrying possible trouble ahead over two obstinate political parties, why can we not request the public to enunciate their choice?
One of the political parties keeps insisting that the election must be held as is permitted by a democratic system approved by the constitution. What seems to be nonchalantly ignored is that election results cannot possibly be considered credible if a major political party expresses a clear lack of belief in the impartiality of those who will be assigned the responsibility of arranging the polls.
And what is so “undemocratic” about choosing a completely neutral poll authority with no partisan identity? The most important fact is, if this political party is so concerned about sustaining the sanctity of democracy, why can it not simply ask people to vote in favour of or against having a neutral authority for supervising elections?
Are they scared about what the opinion of people might be? Both the political parties have the right to be a little intimidated. They have tormented people so much over the past few months that most among us have reached the level of extreme exasperation. While these parties are teaching one other how to spell the word democracy, they seem to care little about being truly democratic, ie to let the people choose their own fate.
Both are claiming that the people love them and yet this is only a malevolent refusal to witness that the people are learning to despise them both. In democracy, nothing is decided on the streets. Is anybody listening?
In the middle ages, two knights seeking the hand of the same lady used to fight a duel to decide who gets to have her. It hardly seemed to occur to them that they could simply ask the lady who she wanted to be with or whatever she wanted. It seems we are having a similar conflict here. Why can we not just ask the lady?
