'Internment' of BNP chief, a dangerous precedent

The Awami League will not be in power forever, nor will Sheikh Hasina be the prime minister. Power might change hands in future elections. But some of the precedents that are being set might haunt us for many years to come, as some past precedents have done for so many years, severely crippling our democracy's march forward.

We suffered incalculably for Bangabandhu's killing along with his family, and the murderous precedent it set. That threw us into military and quasi- military dictatorships along with all their unfortunate and unconstitutional actions including many more murders and killings. All these were dangerous precedents, from which we thought and hoped democracy would save us with its ushering in December 1991.

We believed that we would now have governments and governance with strict adherence to our constitution, laws, rules, norms, and decency.

The first shock to our expectation and to our nascent democracy came from the relentless hartals instituted by the Awami League during 1992-96 period, which intensified in the final two years with weeklong ones until the demand for an election time caretaker government was incorporated in the constitution.

The other shock that dealt a serious blow to our democratic culture -- again started by the AL -- was boycott of the parliament, which started with a few days and ended up with several months of absence. This was followed by another shock from the en mass resignation of AL MPs that made the parliament devoid of the opposition. This, at the very start, killed the possible growth of the “check and balance” role of the Jatiya Sangsad.

The precedent set by the AL as the “opposition”, set the tone for the BNP's role when it was voted out of power, and for all subsequent “oppositions” that were to follow. With each successive change of power -- which remained confined between AL and BNP -- the intensity of animosity increased as the years went by. As a result, our parliament not only never reached its potential of being the centre of “democratic governance”, but became the stage for abuse and insults; and in the make belief narratives regurgitated at the behest of the leaders -- shriller the voice and nastier the language, the better.

With the parliament being continuously abandoned by the opposition, its effectiveness dwindled, and there remained none to effectively hold the government accountable. Thus over time, the executive branch which is very powerful according to our constitution, became even more powerful, and the practice of “check and balance” -- which lies at the very heart of good governance -- was totally lost. Lord Acton was once again proved right -- “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” a reality that we all live with today.

To all these destructive precedents, the BNP added a lethal one -- the assassination attempt on Sheikh Hasina, and the killing of AL leader Ivy Rahman and 24 party activists. Just as the event was tragic, so also was incomprehensible Khaleda Zia government's callous, incompetent, and insincere investigation. This made for a credible circumstantial case that her government had been in the know, and some very powerful members of her party had been responsible for it. The truth will, hopefully, be determined by the court in the future. But the promptness with which Khaleda Zia's government destroyed some evidence, the half-heartedness with which it investigated the case, and the eagerness with which it branded the savagery to be the result of internecine rivalry within the AL, left an indelible impression in the public mind that even if the BNP or Khaleda Zia did not do it, they would not have been too unhappy if Sheikh Hasina actually had fallen a victim to it.

Thus another dangerous precedent was set.

This changed our post-autocracy politics as never before. Sheikh Hasina, already convinced of Gen Ziaur Rahman's role in the loathsome events of 1975, now looked at Khaleda Zia and her son Tarique Rahman, not as political opponents but as her potential killers. This closed for the foreseeable future all possibilities of even a minimum collaboration between our two biggest political parties.

It is against this background that yet another very unfortunate precedent is being set -- that of the treatment of the leader of the biggest opposition party. The forcible confinement of Khaleda Zia in her office, denying her the fundamental rights to free movement, free assembly, and peaceful protest without giving any legal reason are opening up the possibilities of all sorts of harassment of political opponents. Repression and harassment of opposition leaders are nothing new in our part of the world. But to our great relief, as our democratic experiment lengthened after the restoration of democracy in 1991 -- except for the brief interlude of military-backed caretaker government -- political leaders of standing, especially our two top leaders, were not deliberately harassed, “confined” or repressed as the BNP chief has been subjected to in the last few days.

What are of equal concern are the nonchalance of the government in giving any reason as to why the BNP leader is being subjected to these harassment and maltreatment, and the absence of any formal explanation about the events of the last few days. The prime minister says the BNP chief is “free to go home”, but she is “staging a drama” for nothing -- effectively accusing her of fibbing it all. The information minister said, “We have made sure that she cannot indulge in provocative statements.” He also said, “She should be ready to respond to charges of murder.” The state minister for home said, “We have heard what the information minister said, but we have not finalised any action in this matter. However, if she wants to go home, the government will provide her security to do so.” The health minister said, “Since BNP has failed to protect their leader, it is now Sheikh Hasina's duty to provide Khaleda Zia with protection. It is our duty now to protect her.” Whatever else the above confusing comments might imply, it surely cannot mean that the BNP chief is free. So no matter in whatever form, she actually is in confinement.

The AL leaders might say in comparison to what the BNP did to Sheikh Hasina, and the killing of 24 of their activists, they have done very little.  Obviously the harassment meted out to Khaleda Zia cannot be compared with the brutality and viciousness of what the AL and its leader was made to suffer. But the truth of the matter is, a state and a nation cannot grow in the shadow of revenge and counter revenge. The retaliation must stop at some point. Paraphrasing what Mahatma Gandhi said, our politics of "eye for an eye" will make us all blind.

I can almost visualise some AL leaders mockingly questioning why am I pleading so much for the BNP chief's rights. And saying, this reveals where my real sympathy lies, and shows my real colour, and so on. My humble response would be that I am doing so for the future of the country, and for our younger generation whose potential is well established.

This politics of “winner takes all” cannot bring peace and stability we need for our growth. It has to be understood that stability is the mainstay of growth, which we will not have unless some sort of arrangement for cooperation can be worked out.

We conclude with the question, what will be the effect of the precedents being set? We are already facing the severe consequences of past political murders; unconstitutional power grabs; reckless, unthinking and convenient tailoring of the constitution by brute majority; lack of space for dissent; and now the near obliteration of any opposition.

We can ignore Newton's law that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”, but only at our own peril.