The Obama factor and change in Bangladesh

THIS writer saw the euphoria and challenge of change that characterised the Kennedy administration of the early 1960s. The Obama wave reminds one of late President John F. Kennedy, who electrified many Americans to imagine what they could do for their country. Barack Obama's main thrust is on change, change that will hopefully break some stereotypes and lift the nation out of defeatism and negativism.
In Bangladesh, we are facing multi-faceted problems, and change is overdue. Is it a crisis of the state or simply the pangs of transition from suspended democracy to unfettered democracy?
Our current crisis has to be studied in a broader perspective, and while Bangladeshi society has not remained static, real change has not taken place in the basic composition and mind-set of the ruling elite or in their stranglehold on the levers of power.
Are we witnessing a conflict between status quo and change? Do we see on one side the political and privileged classes that want to perpetuate their rule, and, on the other, millions of Bangladeshis with a strong desire for change in order to improve their lives?
The population is facing a plethora of problems, like acute shortage of housing, absence of infrastructure, unemployment, unsatisfactory law and order situation, and exploitation by government functionaries. We also have an emerging middle class whose needs, hopes, and aspirations are different.
Many people now want a more open society, offering freedom of expression and rule of law. They also want to be part of the decision-making process. It would, thus, appear that problems were inherent in our mode of governance and that the establishment refused to take any notice of the dynamics of social change. It is thus evident that we need effectively organised political parties and mass mobilisation that can challenge the perpetual rule of vested interests.
In Bangladesh, we had a weak civil society, and, at least temporarily, the state was hijacked by extra-constitutional power and the political process was stifled. Corruption increased because hand-picked politicians and their cronies were the main constituency of the dictatorial rule. They had a free hand to loot and plunder the country's resources.
For meaningful winds of change to blow, a process of mass mobilisation has to commence by involving peasants, the working class, and professional groups supported by civil society organisations. Unfortunately, our mainstream political parties have not shown signs that they are ready to challenge the status quo and become part of a long drawn battle. Could their aversion to mass mobilisation for real emancipation be attributed to their fear of people power?
In order to ensure change of the kind that Barack Obama envisions we, in Bangladesh, have to seriously appreciate that since January 11, 2007, there appears to have been a sharp awakening of the political conscience of the nation. A realisation has dawned on the people that they are the only keepers of the constitution.
However, politicians will not admit that in the very recent past many of them were wearing the garb of constitutionalism only to cover their arbitrary exercise of power. Many amongst our politicians did not realise that a democracy without discipline has no future. Similarly, undisciplined trade unionism was as dangerous as undisciplined capitalism, and undisciplined demagogy was as dangerous as undisciplined student power.
Many well-meaning, decent citizens along with a sizable segment of the continually suffering common folks of our country have often wondered about the unpalatable but stable relationship of a large number of our politicians with the rogue elements of society.
The political scenario became so desperate and menacing that only the brave and intensely committed workers could dare to take to the streets to face the insensitive actions of a despotic government.
The sad and bitter memory left behind by the chaos of late 2006 was one of a government that did not care a bit about legality and civility, and the anaesthetising conviction that organised violent counter-action with readiness to sacrifice life and property was the only alternative to effect political change.
Under these circumstances, it is quite difficult for the saner elements of the young population to join movements for social change. Since nature abhors a vacuum, it is only natural that the ill-motivated desperados automatically filled in the vacancies resulting from the unwillingness of the desired lot.
Howsoever eloquent we may be on the subject of freedom of speech, assembly and movement, we can be the worst of autocrats when, under a clear democratic dispensation, the government of the day would not allow assembly and protest gatherings of opposition political parties to venture beyond the immediate confines of party offices. What is untenable is that the government would not issue prohibitory orders restricting or banning assembly of persons, but would transmit verbal orders to embarrassed law enforcement personnel to virtually quarantine the opposition in a limited space.
All mature societies are characterised by enduring principles like compassion of the strong towards the weak and the suppression of immediate gratification for the more rewarding goals of national glory and progress. However, in Bangladesh we have witnessed the arrogance of the kleptocrats in the national political scene. Riff-raffs who rose from rags to unbelievable riches posed as guardians of public morals. Nobody seriously objected to the unacceptable use of political power as a medium to acquire riches.
It would indeed be difficult to effect large-scale changes in the attitude and action of the officials of the regulatory and financial institutions that actively helped the corrupt politicians. Without their connivance and abetment, the malfeasance of the political leaders would not have assumed the gigantic proportion that it did, particularly during 2001-2006. The question is: how many such officials shall be booked under the penal law of the land?
We have to admit that the past governments did not possess the required social capital, that is, they did not really enjoy the trust and cooperation of different segments of our society, which are so vital in ensuring the legitimacy of governments. In other words, the foundation of their moral authority and honesty was open to question. Bringing back or restoring legitimacy to our governments, howsoever representative they may be, shall be a difficult task.
The ostentatious living and the conspicuous consumption of our arrogant new rich did not either raise an eyebrow nor prick anyone's conscience, not to speak of energising the regulatory and financial state apparatus to identify unearned wealth. The proud display of luxury cars told volumes about the nasty contour of corruption. The question is: how complex and time-consuming will it be to bring such filthy rich under the clutches of the law?
We must not expect the anti-corruption drive to achieve wonders, because it will be less than pragmatic to think that our substantially corroded officialdom will be suddenly inspired by honesty and fear of God. The need is to exhort and encourage proper leadership in all organs of the state and in different sectors of national life in order to obviate the myopic reliance on Anti-Corruption Commission only to fight the major ills of our society.
The all-pervasive corruption has to be fought on several fronts in order to bring it down to a bearable state. The sectors catering to the basic needs of security, justice, education, and health, amongst others, demand priority in the anti-corruption drive. It has to be ensured that the people's faith in the foundation of the society is not lost.
Exemplary deterrent actions in regulatory sectors will have a favourable impact. Criminally plundered national resources must be brought back. Proper use of political power will be the guarantee for the return of fairness and a sense of service for others. Corruption can be contained in such an environment.
Our change-seeking politicians have to realise that the governance of the country was on the wrong track. They have to appreciate the people's quest for leaders who will not lie to them. The people's perception of our parliament as an ineffectual institution has to be recognised, and the harmful polarisation of socio-economic life along political lines has to be reversed. If the senior politicians have made a mess of things then it is time for them to relinquish power. The baton may have to be passed on to a new breed. That pre-supposes major attitudinal change, which will not be easy to come by.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.