The Awami League is set to hold a public rally in Rajshahi on January 29. Party leaders and activists have been taking preparations to ensure that it will be a mammoth one. As the national election is just a year away, such public rallies will basically turn into election campaign rallies. So, aspiring candidates will try to get as many bodies as possible on the streets to reflect the range of their strength and support.

In all of this, one piece of news caught my eye. A special train is set to take Awami League leaders and activists to Rajshahi from Natore to attend the rally on January 29. State Minister for Information and Communication Technology, Zunaid Ahmed Palak, told journalists that the special train will not affect the schedule of regular trains. He also said that the AL men would pay for the ride.

But another report stated that AL lawmaker Habibe Millat Munna of Sirajganj has rented a special train of 15 coaches for the Rajshahi rally.

Read more

‘Special train’ for Awami League, ‘transport strike’ for BNP

Can a political party – regardless of whether they are in power or in opposition – use public property to attend a party rally? And is this option available to any citizen, for any political party?

In September last year, the main opposition camp, BNP, announced divisional rallies protesting the killing of BNP men, hike of electricity and fuel prices, and to demand the release of party leader Khaleda Zia. Almost all their rallies were obstructed by the ruling party, directly and indirectly. The same thing happened when the BNP held its rally in Rajshahi. A transport strike was "called" across the entire division on the morning of December 1. Rajshahi city was practically cut off from the rest of the country.

At the time, ruling party leaders and ministers said that transport owners and workers had enforced strikes and that they had nothing to do with them. But we also witnessed the transport strike being withdrawn soon after the BNP rally ended. We also found that mobile internet services were disrupted around the venue on the day. We saw how BNP activists were obstructed and, perhaps more importantly, how the general people suffered as a consequence.

As a journalist, I covered some of the BNP rallies and found the same narrative to be true. I saw how a single-day rally turned into a three-day rally. For the BNP, there were transport strikes so that its supporters and sympathisers could not join. For the Awami League, there were arrangements of special trains so that party faithfuls could join the rally in droves.

Read more

How do bus strikes ahead of BNP rallies affect transport workers?

Our political culture has taken such a turn that we take for granted that the ruling party will get some special treatment when they hold rallies, and the opposition is bound to face obstruction for doing the same. What happened centring on BNP's rallies is actually normal and, it appears, so is what's about to happen on January 29 in Rajshahi (that is, the special train for Awami League's rally).

This new normal is currently the most pressing problem in Bangladeshi politics. We used to hear the phrase "level playing field," but when the caretaker government system was abolished following a court order, opposition parties and many civil society members said there wouldn't be a level playing field anymore. And a free and fair election would not be possible if a level playing field is not ensured. But ever since the 2014 election, the term "level playing field" appears to have evaporated from our political vocabulary, speeches, discussions, and even from rhetoric. That is the new normal.

As distrust, fuelled by intolerance, widens among the two major political camps, and the path towards mutual understanding is basically shunned, this new normal will push the whole nation into an abyss of political uncertainty that is far from normal.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is deputy chief reporter at The Daily Star.

The January election has been the centre of attention for well over a year now. Everyone was curious how this edition would eventually pan out, especially whether BNP would finally be able to pressure the government into forming a nonpartisan election-time government, which is difficult, if not impossible. Some were just excited about the possibility of voting and it actually counting, unlike the last two elections. However, with BNP's boycott confirmed and seats distributed among Awami League's alliance, the results are almost a foregone conclusion.

Brig Gen (retd) M Sakhawat Hussain, former election commissioner, said this election is essentially a quest for an opposition party (read opposition in parliament). Although 27 parties are contesting in the polls, the search for a viable opposition remains the most prominent feature. The situation is so obvious that even someone without much political insight can predict that the ruling AL will form the next government with an absolute majority.

Read more

Youth depression is a symptom of broader societal malaise

So, when the results are a foregone conclusion and winners are already known, the election has little significance. The results are predictable as the elections will be held under a range of restrictions.

The restrictions are an important issue here. The Election Commission asked the government to take measures so that no political programmes, other than for electioneering, can be held after December 18. In a letter sent to the home ministry, the EC said parties should be stopped from holding rallies and other public events that may "obstruct the election process and discourage people from casting their votes." The measures should be in place till after the election on January 7, said the letter, addressed to the senior secretary of the Public Security Division.

It is the EC's role to ensure a congenial atmosphere for people to cast their votes freely. But the way the commission is stopping the activities of political parties is merely a bid to hide its failure through other means. This type of action had not been taken by any EC, not even by the 2014 Rakib commission. But this is not unexpected, as the commission itself announced the election schedule amid high security and beefed up police protection, with the deployment of armoured personnel carriers and water cannons.

Basically, this level of security at the EC betrays the election's true nature and how congenial the prevailing atmosphere is. True, BNP and other opposition parties are enforcing hartals and blockades, demanding a nonpartisan interim government. But the political opposition is fully within its rights to demand and campaign to oust the government. Obviously, opposition parties will not support the government when elections come around.

But for the EC to also act as an extension of the political government and bar political programmes that might "discourage people from voting" betrays its inherently nonpartisan design. Holding rallies is a fundamental right not just of a political party but also of individuals, a right that should not be tainted with equivocations or conditions, or intermitted because of "special circumstances." 

Not even the home ministry can lawfully abide by the commission's request. Just like casting votes is a right, so is not casting it. And so is waging a peaceful campaign to convince people not to vote at all. Since there is no "no vote" option, as there was in 2008, citizens may not feel compelled to vote. Thus, any campaign to discourage people from voting is as lawful as the urging people to vote for a certain candidate.

To complicate this further, in a television interview, ruling party leader and agriculture minister Abdur Razzaque said BNP received a number of generous offers. The party was even told that all its leaders would be released from jail overnight if it decides to join the January 7 election. 

Distancing the ruling party from Razzaque's comments, AL general secretary Obaidul Quader, the very next day, said the remarks were not of AL's but that of the minister's alone. On the same day, Razzaque said, "I think what I said, I did not say anything wrong, not a bit. The statement is correct." 

For a long time, BNP leaders have been accusing the government of politicising the legal system and imprisoning its activists and members illegally. Razzaque's statements only vindicate what BNP has been claiming all this time.

Read more

Turn candidates' halafnama into amalnama

As BNP is not contesting the polls, it will try to make the election controversial, demonstrating the loopholes and deficiencies. And towards that end, the opposition parties must give a big thanks to Razzaque and the Election Commission, as they are doing the opposition's work, making it easier to illustrate that the system is so tainted that an election under Awami League would never be fair. 

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina already said that BNP is plotting to create a famine in the country, after realising that it won't be able to thwart the upcoming election, and perhaps realising that tough times are coming a few months down the line. We are hopeful that under Hasina's iron-handed leadership, there will be no such famine in the country. But it appears there is another kind of crisis under her watch—a 10-year drought of proper elections, a drought that won't let up soon, it appears.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The contrast between what the government promised opposition political parties and its actions on the ground couldn't be starker, as a rundown on the 22 days of BNP's ongoing countrywide protest programme shows. What the government promised them was – peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. What they are actually having is – violent assembly and fear of speech/reprisals. While this turnabout is politics 101 in Bangladesh, it also begs the question: was the promise of fair play, and the congeniality expressed in the PM's "Will offer BNP leaders tea if they come to besiege my office" comment, at all meant to be taken seriously?

A report by Prothom Alo shows that between August 22 and September 13, violent attacks and clashes were reported in 48 events of BNP organised as part of a countrywide protest programme against the price hikes of fuel and daily essentials and also the deaths of two of its activists in police shooting in Bhola. Multiple people were injured so far, with BNP claiming to have lost three of its activists as of September 4. In 25 places, houses, vehicles and business establishments of its leaders and activists were vandalised, many of them having since left their neighbourhoods in fear of further reprisals. And in 17 places, section 144 was issued because of Awami League events overlapping with BNP's. Finally, 46 cases were filed in 18 districts.

What we're witnessing is downright denial of political space to the opposition camp. It reminds us of the acrimonious circumstances leading up to the controversial 2014 and 2018 elections.

Bizarrely, though, the official line puts the blame for violence on BNP itself, as if the party brought this all on itself in some sick display of self-loathing or to discredit itself. The truth is, it is the police that stands discredited, firstly because of its partisan role in handling the protests, and secondly, because of its heavy-handed and rather collusive legal response. As a breakdown of the 46 clash-related cases illustrates, 29 were filed by the police and 17 by the leaders of Awami League and affiliated organisations, mostly against their rivals in BNP and affiliated organisations. The total number of accused are 21,709. Of them, 2,777 were named and the rest unnamed – a classic formula to allow for more names to be added later. More damningly, however, the abovementioned report says that a number of accused were sick, old or overseas, meaning they were nowhere near the protest sites.

Read more

Attacks on BNP a worrying sign for the future

What we're witnessing is downright denial of political space to the opposition camp. It reminds us of the acrimonious circumstances leading up to the controversial 2014 and 2018 elections. This, it goes without saying, is not amenable to creating the level playing field so essential for a fair, safe, and participatory election. As things stand, the ruling camp, despite what it said officially and despite demands by independent parties to protect people's right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, appears totally unwilling to allow the opposition to reach the ears of the masses.

This is totally unacceptable. We urge the authorities, including the Election Commission, to ensure the opposition is allowed to protest and prepare for the upcoming election. The ruling party must discipline its activists and the police and keep them from infringing upon these inalienable rights of the opposition.

When the top leadership of the Awami League and BNP, the two major political parties in Bangladesh, ruled out any possibility of talks ahead of the next parliamentary election, the Election Commission appeared in the scene by inviting the BNP to a dialogue.

Suspicious about the sudden invitation, the BNP rejected it outright, calling it "meaningless." Although the EC roadmap, announced late last year, did not say anything about talks with the political parties, it did mention that gaining their trust was a major challenge. But it did not spell out how that trust would be earned.

The EC invitation to BNP came at a time when Awami League and BNP leaders were both meeting with diplomats about the next election. It was widely reported that Western diplomats emphasised holding a free and fair election. To add to the context, the US Department of State has published its annual flagship human rights report where it was mentioned for the first time that the 2018 election was neither free nor fair. Charles Whiteley, the European Union ambassador to Bangladesh, said the EU would not send observers to the next election if it is not participatory. Now, if the international observers don't come, the election's credibility as well as the EC's role will remain under question.

Read more

In which direction is Bangladesh heading?

It could be said that the election authorities only acted responsibly when they invited the main opposition, seeing as the issue of a participatory election is under discussion right now. On the surface, at least, the EC has demonstrated their willingness to hold an inclusive, free and fair election. But one ought to ask what the EC is looking to achieve through these talks. Other than the commission gaining some mileage by showing their attempts, and the political parties playing to the gallery, there is not much that these talks would gain. In that respect, talks with the EC would be rather infructuous.

The invitation letter to the BNP also clarifies some things. While the Election Commission is fully aware of BNP's position regarding an election-time government, there is no comment related to that in the letter. To make any progress with the election, the stumbling blocks must be dealt with, and the commission must have a specific agenda for the talks – for instance, whether to use electronic voting machines (EVMs) or not. The invitation letter does not carry any such details. Then why hold these talks?

The Election Commission may claim that their goal is to ensure an inclusive 12th parliamentary election. But simply saying that is not enough, given the previous EC's complete failure to hold a credible election in 2018, and then even admitting that publicly.

The BNP should have taken time to deliberate over their decision before rejecting the EC invitation. Now they have to explain why they don't want to join the talks. Shunning the possibility of dialogues is not a good option for any political party. The only meaningful explanation could be that holding talks with the EC would, in fact, give it the legitimacy that the BNP has refused from the beginning. But it is unlikely that the main opposition camp has given the matter any such thought.

The incumbent EC could claim that they are different from their predecessors. But then, one could ask what this commission has done to earn the trust of all political parties. The commission's activities so far don't portray them in a favourable light, nor do they indicate sincere intentions. The BNP, which boycotted EC dialogues in June and July last year, has not shown any confidence in the electoral authority since its formation – and even before its formation, since the party did not join the talks initiated by the president and did not propose any name to the search committee of this EC. The party has repeatedly said that the EC would not be able to hold a free, fair and participatory general election.

The lack of trust for the Election Commission deepened when it went ahead with the decision to use EVMs in the upcoming general election, ignoring the objection of many political parties, including the BNP. That decision, while embracing modernity and change, was aligned with the desire of the ruling party.

Undoubtedly, rejecting the dialogue would be a setback for the BNP as it would garner criticism from the ruling party. The EC would be able to say that they tried, but could not bring BNP to the table. BNP leaders would have to remain busy for a few days parrying all the criticism. The party may even face questions from the international community.

Read more

Political dialogues: The long road to nowhere

The BNP should have taken time to deliberate over their decision before rejecting the EC invitation. Now they have to explain why they don't want to join the talks. Shunning the possibility of dialogues is not a good option for any political party. The only meaningful explanation could be that holding talks with the EC would, in fact, give it the legitimacy that the BNP has refused from the beginning. But it is unlikely that the main opposition camp has given the matter any such thought.

Having said all that, the political parties can take advantage of the situation as it suits their strategy, but not the Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and assigned to hold a free, fair and participatory election. Lip service or mere show of effort may not be enough.

Listening to the trials and tribulations of this political reporter, and learning that the EC had invited the opposition to the table, a relative recounted an anecdote about the stingy hosts of a certain part of the country, where guests would often arrive on boats. The story goes like this: in this certain region, the hosts keep mum as the guests get ready to leave and get on their boat to return home, and just when the hosts push off the boat, they say, "I wish you had stayed a few more days with us." But by then the boat is already sailing, and the guests have nothing but to say, "Next time!"

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

Last December, BNP managed to create a strong momentum with successive divisional rallies, defying obstacles from the ruling party cadres and law enforcement agencies. But it lost that momentum when it tried to hold a rally in Dhaka. Since then, the party – which has been out of office for more than 16 years – has been trying to regain that thrust. This time around, BNP held a series of programmes around Dhaka and got some traction thanks to its supporters, leading up to its grand rally of July 28. The party was also able to hold the rally at its preferred venue, in front of its Nayapaltan headquarters. Tens of thousands of BNP workers joined in, defying myriad odds and obstacles. It turned out to be a mammoth rally and, encouraged by the turnout, BNP announced sit-in programmes at five entry points of the capital the very next day, presumably to cut off Dhaka from the rest of the country for several hours between 11am and 4pm. But the sit-in failed in the face of the ruling party's strong presence on the street and the aggressive attitude of the police. And again, BNP lost its momentum.

Since then, a few questions have been circulating in political circles: why did BNP go for such a programme? What did it achieve? And what will the party do now that the national election is just a few months away?

Read more

For every rally, there is a counter-rally

After the announcement of BNP's one-point demand – resignation of the ruling government for a caretaker government to oversee elections – movement on July 12, the party took only 16 days to announce the sit-in demos. Coordination among the party fronts and associate bodies, which requires time, is imperative to make such ambitious programmes successful, but there seems to have been a lack of coordination among BNP leaders in this regard. Even some of the party's senior leaders were in the dark about these programmes till they were announced. The decision of a sit-in demo of such a scale, without much time on its hands, indicates that BNP was in a hurry.

There is no denying that the party has a strategy in place to achieve its goal of the next election being held under a nonpartisan, election-time government. But it seems that the plan may not be as well thought out as BNP supporters would like. The party's leadership felt charged up seeing the large-scale turnout in the rally, but they underestimated the government's strength and strategic abilities. This explains why BNP couldn't succeed entirely in its programme, and now seems to have backtracked from its tough stance. After the sit-in, the party announced demos in districts and cities across Bangladesh, which is a deviation from its Dhaka-centric plans. The lack of coordination and confidence in terms of holding large rallies and showdown-like programmes can demoralise grassroots BNP supporters, who are paying a high price for the erroneous judgement calls of the party's top brass.

Read more

Can BNP really put up a good fight?

For the longest time, BNP has argued that the government and law enforcement agencies are obstructing their peaceful rallies, and the events which unfolded on July 29 has once again lent credence to their clams. The attack by ruling party men, in the presence of the law enforcement agencies, has laid bare just how "democratic" the government will be in the lead up to the elections. Of course, some BNP men did engage in violent activities during the sit-ins, but the previous programmes of BNP were largely peaceful, despite instigations. Either way, BNP knows that any violence from its own party will eventually work against itself. And this time, the party is being careful as it was accused of conducting arson attacks in 2013 and trying to sabotage the January 5, 2014 election.

Back in 2013, the party did not come up with alternative strategies when they saw that the blockades were not working. At least this time around, they have backtracked from their plans and proposed an alternative when they realised that the sit-in had failed. This could be interpreted as the party being more mature and wiser in its current decisions.

Read more

What is the point of attacking BNP rallies?

BNP's real loss in all this was giving the upper hand to the ruling party. There was no doubt that the ruling party felt pressure, especially after the composed and largely organised grand rally. But the following day, when ruling party cadres were able to easily disperse the BNP demonstrators, it worked like a morale-boosting tonic for the former. They felt more confident about being on the streets and not giving anything away to the BNP. This was essential for the Awami League at a time when it seemed to be under pressure from different directions to hold a free and fair election. Now it remains to be seen whether BNP can once again revive their momentum and give the ruling party a run for their money.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.