Lessons from NCC verdict
It was good of the prime minister to call Selina Hayat Ivy, the newly elected mayor of Narayanganj City Corporation (NCC), and congratulate her. She even said "Baaper Beti" (Worthy daughter of worthy father), acknowledging the magnificence of Ivy's victory and perhaps recalling the fact that her father, also denied party nomination, ended up defeating the party candidate in 1974. It was an appropriate gesture that one expects from a leader of Sheikh Hasina's stature. We may even compliment her on being able to swallow her pride and congratulating somebody whose victory was obviously not something she desired --- whatever may be said now. So far so good.
The problem arose when we saw that the PM had also invited Shamim Osman, the contestant that Narayanganj voters had emphatically rejected through what can be truly termed as a "ballot revolution". Not only that, Shamim was invited at the same time, reportedly without Ivy's knowledge, and was called to the PM's presence together, both when she met them in a closed door meeting, and then in the session where others were present.
How did Shamim Osman fit in there? What considerations could have made the PM invite both together? How appropriate is it to treat the victor of an election in the same manner as the loser? What sort of respect is it for public opinion when both are given the same stature? Imagine the feeling of voters from Narayanganj? While they have made a clear choice, the PM does not seem to acknowledge it? How might they have felt seeing the person they had collectively rejected standing on one side of the PM with the one who has their love and respect on the other? What does it say about the prime minister's own respect for voters' judgment?
Then comes the bombshell. As reported, Sheikh Hasina asked the elected mayor of NCC to "work together" with Shamim Osman in developing the city. Work together? With whom? The person that the voters have rejected? Is it the verdict of the people of Narayanganj that they should work together? Did we, at The Daily Star, miss something?
However brave a face the party may now put on, people know that the Awami League backed Shamim in the election, and the decision to back Shamim was taken at the behest of the prime minister herself. In fact, the leaders who could communicate with her pleaded with her to back Ivy, because they all knew the public mood. Most local leaders from Narayanganj also advised the same. Frantic messages were sent to her warning of impending disaster if Shamim was given the party backing. Party leaders even implored her to back neither as both were from the AL and both refused to stand down when asked to do so by the party chief. Ignoring almost all serious advice, and not taking into account grassroots opinion, the AL chief made known her clear preference that ultimately got translated into party support.
The reason we delve at some length into the process of selecting Shamim over Ivy is because we now see an attempt to impose the same person on the people of Narayanganj in running the affairs of NCC. How can Ivy work together with Shamim when the public made a clear choice? Had Ivy campaigned on a premise of "if elected I will work together with Shamim", we seriously doubt if she would have got the mandate she did. So why this deliberate negation of people's wishes?
We are deeply disturbed by the prime minister's remark. It is as if it was a mere quarrel between two errant factional leaders, as if there has not been a public verdict, as if people have not expressed their choice, as if there were no differences between these two candidates.
We are forced to point out that just as Sheikh Hasina failed to gauge the public mood prior to the election, she is now failing to understand the message that has come out of the NCC election. People want an end to the criminalisation of politics; they want an end to corruption; they want freedom from intimidation and extortion; they want transparent and accountable government, and most importantly, they want clean and honest politicians to lead them. These are the fundamental messages to have emanated from the NCC election.
There is a thinking among the higher echelons of our leading political parties, especially the rulings parties of the day, that elections cannot be won without criminal elements, that muscle power and money are needed to bring in votes. However attractive moral values and ethics may sound, in the practical world of vote getting gangsters play a vital role. In the 2001 election Sheikh Hasina opted to give party nominations to several candidates with criminal reputation, the most prominent of whom was Joynal Hazari. Many AL nominations in Dhaka were mostly based on "money-muscle" consideration. Not only were they "certain" to return, but were also expected to "help" others to win. Almost all of them lost heavily and brought the party down with them, as people were furious to see such people nominated.
While in power the BNP's Hawa Bhavan operations were mainly based on similar considerations, and we all know what disaster it brought to the party.
People who know have commented that Sheikh Hasina has a soft spot for Shamim Osman because of his contribution during her early days in politics in the 1980s and because of his personal devotion to her during the threatening times of Freedom Party operations.
While personal IOUs have some value, however they need to be judged in the wider context of public and national good. Sheikh Hasina is too big a leader and too experienced a prime minister to allow bigger national issues to get clouded by such personal considerations.
We think her attempt to rehabilitate politicians with a dubious past is extremely ill conceived. Our issue is not with any particular politician but with the whole practice of patronisation of criminals and criminally linked politicians by our big parties. Whatever small advantage they may bring in one instance or another, overall they bring disaster to the parties that patronise them.
The people of Narayanganj, through their votes, have given Sheikh Hasina a magnificent opportunity to bring about a qualitative change in her party politics. She now has an opening to bring in a new breed of young leaders, who are "clean", committed and honest. She can seize the moment and start anew the "politics of change" that was her party's pledge, and believing which people gave her such an overwhelming mandate.
Contrarily, Sheikh Hasina can choose to trivialise the lessons from this election.
Comments