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.

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 government has turned down Khaleda Zia's family's application to allow her to be taken abroad for urgent treatment, which her lawyer and her party leaders have termed as a political vendetta. The government's reasoning, as explained by Law Minister Anisul Huq, was that the application, on which the government has suspended the jail sentence of Khaleda Zia and released her from jail on two conditions, has been disposed of and has become a "past and closed transaction." The minister also said that the decision to suspend her sentence was made under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This refusal to allow treatment abroad could not have come at a worse time, as the former prime minister's continuous illness has reached a critical stage, with life-threatening conditions. Besides, political distrust and division in the country over the coming election, too, have become highly charged. Against this context, it is hard to discard the notion that politics played no part in this decision from the government.

Read more

‘Govt wants Khaleda dead’

It is still unclear what rekindled the hope of her family and party that the BNP chief's treatment abroad could be possible, despite the fact that several attempts in the past have been flatly rejected by the government, citing the same law and argument which the law minister has referred to in his latest legal opinion. Reportedly, Khaleda Zia told her partymen not to agree to participating in the next parliamentary election under the current government in exchange for her medical care abroad.

It, therefore, begs this question: was the life of a politician, of such stature, really made a bargaining chip by either of the parties? The question became even more pertinent when the law minister, responding to reporters' queries on September 24, said that the government did not receive any application from her family seeking permission to take her abroad.

It followed the government's decision to extend Khaleda Zia's conditional release from prison for six more months, based on a separate application filed on September 4. As a result of the law minister's suggestive remarks that the family had not sought permission for her treatment abroad, Khaleda's younger brother Shamim Iskander made another application on September 25 seeking the required approval.

Read more

Khaleda has to return to jail first if she wants to go abroad for treatment: PM

Should we believe that the issue of seeking permission afresh was brought about simply to humiliate the political opponent by reminding them of how "powerless" they are? Questions may also arise about whether the arguments of considering the petition "disposed of" and "a past and closed transaction" are tenable.

It is often said that the law will take its own course. But examples are plenty to prove that the incident at hand was simply political rhetoric. If someone compares the fate of the 78-year-old former prime minister with that of some other politicians, such as Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal leader ASM Abdur Rab, the irony becomes evident. The JSD leader was allowed to go to then West Germany for treatment while he was serving his prison term awarded by a martial law court. Another politician, Haji Mohammad Selim – who belongs to the ruling party – was not barred from travelling to Bangkok for his treatment despite being convicted and ordered to surrender, and having had a record of fleeing the country during the tenure of the caretaker government between 2006 and 2008.

Law Minister Anisul Huq said, "Once an application is disposed of under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), there is no scope to reconsider it under the law." Many other jurists, however, do not agree with his interpretation of the law as there is nothing that bars the government or limits its authority to reconsider its decision. Every law is subject to interpretation, and there are variations in interpretations. Among these variations – except the court's interpretation – some are known as literal, and some are mischievous or intended to create mischief.

Read more

Khaleda Zia in politics: Missed chance for BNP?

Amid the contested claims by the government and by BNP, it would be better to read Section 401 of the CrPC and draw one's own conclusion. Under the title "Power to suspend or remit sentences," the law states in Section 401(1), "When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the Government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced."

Additionally, Section 401(6) says, "The Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with." As the literal meaning of the rule is far from convincing, it would be wiser for the government to reconsider its decision, which may help improve the current political environment in the country.

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His X handle is @ahmedka1

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.