As the nation is getting ready, albeit tentatively, for a probable election, the two major parties are relatively ready with their election pitch. Apart from banking on the shortcomings of the current government, the BNP chairperson in her recent public address outlined certain pledges concerning certain social and economic programs.
The campaign of the ruling Awami League on the other hand clearly entails an Obama-like tendency to promote “continuity” to safeguard the completion of the development projects they have undertaken and ensure greater stability.
In essence, they have tried to project the notion that five years is clearly inadequate, hence a re-election is the only solution to enable them to reach their goals. Now let us examine this notion carefully.
While it might be argued that certain massive development projects cannot be completed within a five-year period, a strong political will is definitely sufficient to start one. The Padma Bridge fiasco in this regard is a relevant example.
Not only did the government fail to start this project but it also failed or rather shied away from bringing those accused of corruption related to this colossal project to book. By doing so, the government has displayed two critical shortcomings in the form of “lack of political will” and “poor governance.”
It must be pointed out that an elected regime does not require more than five years to demonstrate positive political will and set the tone for good governance. In fact, these elements should be inherently desirable within a democratic structure and the lack of it runs the risk of a regime turning kleoptocratic at best.
The Awami League not only failed to bring its party men accused of corruption to justice in this instance but in certain cases found ways to rehabilitate them.
Among other factors, the state of the current economy will be one of the core issues in the voters’ mind for the upcoming national elections. Apart from the existing economic slowdown, the failure of the government to regulate the financial market is yet another example of poor governance.
From the capital market collapse to Destiny and Hallmark scams, the government has failed to regulate and bring about justice to compensate those millions who have lost a hefty portion of their life savings in pursuit of some return on their humble investments.
It must be mentioned that the report published by Ibrahim Khaled documenting the possible reasons behind the capital market collapse was later made public after much drama but no one of note has been apprehended so far.
In this case, the Awami League government has evidently failed in yet another count and that is in the “delivery of justice.” While millions of stakeholders were victims of an over-hyped market, the government preferred to protect the handful of people who were behind creating that false bubble in order to realise their self interest.
It seems that the interest of millions took a backseat in order to grant impunity to an influential few.
While the Awami League can try and portray itself as the scion of justice by setting up the war crimes tribunal to punish those for atrocities committed in 1971, its record of ensuring justice and protecting its citizens from atrocities committed now is rather poor.
From the disappearance of Elias Ali to the murder of Bishwajit, all the incidents point towards that direction. Yet again, the lack of political will of this government in establishing the rule of law is palpable, although a “five-year tenure” is sufficient to bring about a notable change in this regard.
If a government is incessantly failing to protect its citizens, one cannot point at the length of tenure as an excuse. Five years is a significant amount of time to bring about qualitative changes in terms of ensuring both internal and external national security.
In short, five years is a long enough time for the people of a country to gauge the intention and the will of a government. Therefore, the myth of a five-year tenure being insufficient to bring about a noteworthy change does not hold much water.
With strong will, good governance can be brought to the fore from the onset. At the end of the day, it is up to the electorates to decide who will form the government next but it is safe to assume that they are equipped with enough information from five years to make a decision.
Not all changes are tangible. Certain changes are intangible and invaluable and those changes can be achieved if certain intrinsic democratic principles are in place.
The length of tenure in this case remains irrelevant. It is just a matter of seeing how much our leaders are willing to adhere to such principles.
