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.

It is a fundamental principle of justice that any person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. This is to ensure the legal rights of the accused throughout a trial. The case of jailed BNP leaders Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Mirza Abbas appears to be a contravention of that principle. Their bail petitions in a case filed over the December 7 clash between BNP activists and police have been rejected for the fourth time now.

As we know, since that clash, hundreds of leaders and activists of the BNP and its front organisations have been arrested. Mirza Fakhrul, the party's secretary general, and Mirza Abbas, a member of its standing committee, were arrested in the early hours of December 9, on charges of inciting violence. While these arrests follow the well-established political strategy of rounding up opposition activists after any clash, one expects the judicial process to follow its own course and take decisions impartially. However, the repeated denial of bail to Fakhrul and Abbas raises concerns about that process.

Read more

AL's strategy of intimidation may no longer be working

To be clear, we're not commenting on the merit of charges brought against them. Their guilt or innocence is for the court to establish. But until that has happened – and so long as they're not flight risks, which they are not – they deserve to get bail like everyone else. Importantly, their names were not even in the First Information Report (FIR) of the case in which they were implicated, while two other BNP leaders – Amanullah Aman and Abdul Kader Bhuiyan – whose names were there in the FIR of the same case were already granted bail by another court. Why this discrepancy? Why different bail decisions in the same case? Are we to accept a breach of legal principles here, and presume them guilty until proven innocent? Who will account for the time they are kept behind bars if they are eventually proven innocent, or if this case drags on indefinitely, which most political cases tend to do?

Read more

Pursuit of peace through violence?

We're talking about two top leaders of our main opposition party. Both are veteran politicians, hold high ranks in their party, and have had ministerial portfolios during BNP's last term in office. They are also reportedly sick, leading to the court directing jail authorities to provide them with proper treatment. Their social status and physical conditions alone would have merited a bail consideration. Unfortunately, in recent years, there have been many instances of bail denials in cases involving rival politicians and government critics. Should we see them as a mere coincidence, or is there any external influence behind such decisions?

We hope the judiciary will reconsider the bail petitions of jailed BNP leaders. It will only help its image and credibility among the public at a time when the judiciary is facing a challenge to establish rule of law amid a complex interplay of legal loopholes, institutional barriers, lack of resources, and intense political pressures that are making justice difficult to deliver. We hope it will rise to that challenge.

The lists of dengue infections and deaths are only getting longer, and nobody can tell if, or when, the situation will get better. The prices of daily essentials continue to skyrocket, with the price of eggs, the go-to protein for the poor, now equal to that of a kilogram of broiler chicken. Meanwhile, more than 50 people were killed in the floods in Chattogram and the Chittagong Hill Tracts area in recent weeks.

In all of this, it is the common people (or in the context of the upcoming national election, the voters) who are the worst sufferers. But the politicians seem to be blissfully oblivious to the plight of their electorate. There is no denying that the country is headed towards its next parliamentary election with the two major political parties harbouring opposite stances regarding the election itself. Of course, a free, fair, and inclusive election is necessary for a better society and stronger democracy. But when people are suffering the most, when they are dying because of poor governance, how can the political parties focus on only the physical exercise of the election and how it will play out in about four months? Shouldn't their focus be on how best to serve the people now? Shouldn't they be concerned about the welfare of the poorest of society? Shouldn't our politicians be working to win the hearts and minds of the people, instead of engaging in political power play with their archrivals?

Read more

Living like the poor, paying like the rich

Ideally, and historically, people get into politics for the welfare of their people. But it appears from recent political machinations that the people have been conveniently forgotten or even sidelined in the game of politics. When one political party says that the country's people are with it, and the other party claims that it represents the people, I can't help but wonder who it is that is actually representing me, or has my interests at heart.

Bangladeshi politics is going through a critical phase. The fact is that politicians have lost control over politics in general, which appears to have been hijacked by corporate interests – given the representation of businessmen and former bureaucrats in the parliament. Currently, around 62 percent of lawmakers are from the business sector. The government's dependency on the administration has increased. And none but the politicians have brought this upon themselves, in their pursuit of shortcuts and expediency. When career politicians become weak, so does politics. And when the people are sidelined, politics – so far as it is concerned with maintaining democracy – becomes more fragile.

Read more

Is the Awami League worried?

It is in this context that the exhortations of the diplomatic corps in Dhaka – India, China, the US, and the EU – about the supremacy of the people and how they hope that the people's wishes will be reflected in the outcome of the election, are both ironic and intriguing.

The two previous elections changed the nature of Bangladeshi people's participation in national politics. The 2014 election, which BNP had boycotted and which saw 153 lawmakers being elected uncontested, remains a rare example of a lopsided election. In the 2018 election, many people were denied the right to cast their votes, and allegations emerged of ballot-stuffing on the eve of elections, so much so that it was even mentioned by Awami League's alliance members. When politicians found that they could get elected even without votes, voters ceased to become a factor to consider when trying to win elections. In the past, candidates did have to woo voters, and win their hearts and minds to get their votes. But now, when a mere nomination all but guarantees victory for a candidate, the exercise of putting in effort to win voters has become all but cosmetic.

Read more

Did BNP make the wrong call?

On the other hand, while the opposition can do little so far as actual measures are concerned – whether that relates to dengue or prices – it is their responsibility to hold the government accountable. It falls on the opposition to keep these issues alive so that the government cannot ignore them. One way to do that is in parliament, which has unfortunately lost its purpose since the official opposition is, by and large, an informal extension of the ruling party alliance. Meanwhile, the main opposition camp on the streets, BNP, is too obsessed with its one-point demand for a resignation of the ruling government than with the plight of the voters.

So now, whenever I hear calls for this or that "in the name of the people," and when political parties launch campaigns for the supposed sake of the people, it seems to me that those politicians are merely cementing their political careers using the name of the people. Is anyone actually thinking about the families of those 50 people who died in the floods? Or about the children who are going to bed hungry in Bangladesh even now? That one has to pose such questions in a column is perhaps an even bigger tragedy.

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

On the same day that the home minister told journalists that law enforcement agencies would not restrict BNP if they hold peaceful programmes, one BNP activist was killed allegedly by police fire while scores were injured after a procession was blocked by police in Bhola. According to local BNP activists, who were protesting the rise in fuel prices and load shedding in the country, they had taken verbal permission to organise a rally and a procession. However, the police contest that the party did not take permission for the procession specifically, and that BNP supporters hurled brick chips and glass bottles at them when they intercepted it.

Read more

1 killed as police, BNP activists clash in Bhola

Let us assume that the police version of events is the correct one. Let us put aside the fact that in an ideal society, you would not need to request permission to exercise your right to protest. Let us also accept that it was the BNP protesters who became violent first. Even in these circumstances, is it fair for the police to use live bullets to bring a situation "under control"? Can the police become judge, jury and executioner and end the life of a man for hurling brick chips? Are there no methods of maintaining law and order other than using such excessive force? Equally importantly, what message does it send to the opposition political camp, especially when BNP is refusing to participate in the upcoming national election fearing undue interferences from the ruling party?

Read more

No bar on BNP to hold peaceful demos: minister

BNP activist Abdur Rahim is not the first person in the past week to have been killed after police interventions. On July 27, seven-month-old Sumaiya was shot in her mother's lap during election violence in Thakurgaon. On that evening too, the police were attacked by supporters of a defeated contestant, and apparently they opened fire in self-defence. The fact that an infant ended up being killed demonstrates just how reckless this firing must have been. Despite there being a provision in the police code for firing into the ground to frighten rioters, or at knee height to cause injury, we continue to see deaths as a result of lethal force from the police.

Every public institution run with taxpayers' money must be accountable to the people. This is all the more crucial for law enforcement agencies who are the only force legally empowered to detain, question, threaten, and sometimes even take the life of a citizen. A force with such power must adhere to the highest ethical standards, and follow procedure to the letter. Yet, what we continue to witness in Bangladesh can only be described as an abuse of power and a miscarriage of justice. Without accountability and immediate reforms, we fear more citizens will continue to die or suffer at the hands of law enforcement agencies.