Editorial
Tact missing in political language
Tongue-lashing should stop
Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia in her valedictory speech at the prorogation of the parliament's session on Monday offered the Opposition an olive branch on the one hand, and took it away, on the other. This left political observers guessing what she actually intended by such a mixed approach. In politics, at her level, and more important perhaps, given the BNP-AL confrontational eye-balling at each other, even simple blowing of hot and cold would have been self-defeating, let alone sending across clearly readable contradictory signals. The prime minister said in so many words that she was prepared to work with the opposition in taking the country forward. She offered to sit with the opposition for a dialogue and invited them to join her in parliament and her development endeavour. If these sentiments were uttered unstuck from rancour, they would have marked a step forward. But that was not to be; for, in the same breath, she scolded the opposition for their attempts at dislodging her government "with conspiracy and criminal activities . . .". The tirade was topped off by the remark: people have rejected the opposition, etc. Evidently, the invitation to the opposition for a dialogue stood negated thereby. Begum Zia, being in power, has the potential initiative in her hand to lead the way for a dialogue, and we urge her to realise that potential in fostering a working relationship with the opposition in the very least. That said, we turn to what the opposition leader has said. Sheikh Hasina has given an ultimatum to the government to track down killers of Ahsanullah Master in a week or else she would order the shutting down of mills and factories and transport services all over the country. Who will be hurt: the government or the people and the economy in general? Needless to say, the latter; and at what cost to her party's image? We are definitely concerned over the fate of Ahsanullah murder case, and do welcome pressing the government for an early delivery of justice. But why link it to economic suffering? The opposition, for its part, must not take a course that affects its standing with the people. It would be impolitic on their part even to unwittingly see all the routes to a dialogue sealed. Moreover, it would be in supreme national interest not to be doing so.
|
|
