In 1947, fearing the total devastation of an atom bomb, scientists came up with a powerful symbol named “The Doomsday Clock.” The closer the hands came to 12 o’clock, the greater the chance seemed of nuclear war.
At the height of the Cold War in 1953, the time read approximately 11:58 – the closest it ever came to midnight. Since 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the time was pushed back to its furthest point ever at 11:43. (Though again, with Russia’s recent aggression towards Ukraine, the hands have moved ahead to 11:57.)
If we can say there is a similar Doomsday Clock for politics in Bangladesh, then what time would it read today? Assuming that the clock showed 11:59 on the eve of the military takeover on January 11, 2007; then for now, the time must have at least crossed 11:55.
Unprecedented in its violence against civilians, the new movement chosen by the BNP is a mystery. Surely, this level of cruelty against the populace cannot be a course of action for any mainstream party that means to attain power through elections.
Why, then, has BNP decided on this route? The reason is cold yet simple: By any means, it wants to end graft cases against its senior leaders, and to protect the detained leaders of its partner Jamaat. To this end, they are trying to unseat the Awami League by delegitimising its governance, even though it means killing innocent people.
It would be hard to argue at this point that BNP’s actions constitute a genuine public movement for democratic rights. After much decimation, BNP no longer has the capacity nor the patience to build up an authentic movement. Which is why they have chosen the cruel calculation of outsourcing violence to its expert allies: Jamaat-Shibir.
BNP clearly hopes that through the ongoing chaos, the constitution and confidence in democracy too will be washed away, and take the AL out of power with that torrent. And though the general people abhor terrorist tactics, the BNP’s attempt to unseat the government through anarchic actions poses a genuine risk of success is not without chances of success for a simple reason: People will also not abide such abnormal conditions indefinitely.
It is unlikely that the ongoing terror tactics can be stanched only with police actions. And that brings us to a second mystery: Why is the government so unwilling to consider any measures beyond ever harder strong-arm tactics?
The Awami League seems to be in denial about the fact that the BNP’s demand for a free and fair election is, on its face, something with a great deal of public support. In any election where a huge portion of people did not cast their vote, it is the population itself which feels deprived of its democratic rights. Even as people accepted the constitutional necessity of the last polls, they hardly saw it as a mandate for the AL to rule for five years.
So by taking up the call for a free and fair election, the BNP – despite their inhuman behaviour – has tapped into a deep, popular need of our countrymen. And in its harsh rhetoric to refute BNP, the AL is also alienating considerable sections of the public. It’s not so much that the people think BNP has a “right” to fresh polls, but they do! The ruling party needs to find a way to show respect for the demands of it people, while not giving into BNP’s terrorist tactics.
In a parliamentary system, an election can be arranged at any moment – and there are numerous examples of snap polls in Britain, Australia, India, etc. So, it is entirely possible to offer mid-term polls – to satisfy the public – without giving into BNP’s demands, as it were. Awami stalwarts who believe that any “concession” on the election issue will hand the BNP a victory are failing to read the new Bangladesh.
In a situation where most people see both parties as self-serving and stubborn, whichever party makes an effort towards a logical and adaptive attitude is sure to gain a swell of public support. There is no scope to hold direct dialogs with BNP as long as it persists in terror tactics.
There is also no obligation to hold dialogs with any self-selecting group in society. But there is need to admit that mid-term polls are a common practice in parliamentary systems. And there is also need for a dialog with broader society on what measures could make any elections under the current constitution to a majority of the people.
BNP will reject the validity of any such dialog. BNP will call into question the integrity and motivation of any such group that the government might engage. But as long as the government engages a broad swath of society that most people see as representing a wide spectrum and not a narrow partisan band, any discussion with them will have great legitimacy. And if the government can articulate measures that assure the Election Commission and the administration’s ability to function without meddling by incumbents, that too may satisfy the public. If public confidence in future poll mechanisms are won, then elections boycotted by BNP again will leave them with little public sympathy.
Ruling party advocates will argue that the parliament itself is the forum for any discussion among representatives of society. As it happens, January 5 did not deliver a parliament that is a “big tent” forum in that sense. Awami apologists will also argue: How can one decide who are proper representatives of the public outside of the parliament?
True enough, but the public knows who are honest brokers and will accept a right mix of them as an “expert committee.” Dialog with them will give the government an opportunity to clarify its position and minute thoughts on electoral mechanisms to the public. It will do the ruling party a favour; neither the public nor the discussants. The longer the ruling party takes to grasp these simple truths, our political Doomsday Clock will tick ever closer to midnight.
