Dialogue and its future

THE topic that is being very widely discussed these days is "dialogue." The caretaker government (CTG) has been inviting different stakeholders of the coming national election and future governance for dialogue one at a time.
So far, dialogue has taken place with some political parties and the apex business body, the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FBCCI). As far as is known, in addition to political parties, the CTG has expressed its desire to hold dialogue with representatives of civil society and some professional groups, and may also take the views of the general public at some regional points.
There is confusion among the people about the purpose of the dialogue. Most of the people are naturally taking the dialogue as bi-lateral talks between CTG and the parties. Some people are taking the dialogue as preparation for holding of election only. The logic is that the only function of the CTG is holding of a free and fair election, and it should not go beyond that.
Another reason for keeping the dialogue limited to the election is that the CTG will not continue beyond election to implement any program, so it is no use talking about or taking any decision in that respect. It is felt by some that it is pointless, and a waste of time, to forward any other demands excepting those related to the election.
The CTG has expressed on different occasions that it would like to have a free and fair election and would like to have cooperation of all concerned for that. But, at the same time, since taking over, the CTG has also been talking about qualitative change in politics and governance. The chief adviser wants to have the dialogue to achieve a national consensus on election and future governance.
The background of installation of the current CTG should be remembered at this point as it seems that it is being forgotten. Prior to the scheduled date of national election for the 9th parliament, there was a mass movement for postponement of that election. It was widely believed that the election would be rigged, and would be held to declare a pre-determined result in favour of the Four Party Alliance, in collusion with alleged partisan administration, Election Commission (EC) etc.
At the same time, demands were raised for a qualitative change in political culture and governance. The existing system was found infected with the politics of
criminalisation, with pervasive corruption in the name of democracy and democratic dispensation. The present CTG was installed in that context after the previous CTG was dissolved.
The people expect this CTG to not only ensure a free and fair election but also to initiate a qualitative improvement in political culture and good governance.
After taking over, the present CTG thoroughly reshuffled the EC, removing all the allegedly partisan officials. A new draft of the People's Representation Ordinance was prepared in consultation with political parties and civil society members for conducting the election, with provisions for stringent punishment to discourage use of excessive money or muscle.
Reshuffling was carried out in the administration to remove people with party bias from important election-connected positions. In addition, a massive drive was undertaken against corruption and other crimes with a view to curbing the use of black money and muscle in the next election in addition to improving rule of law in general.
But, the CTG has also carried out some other important reform works, like separation of judiciary from the executive, and formation of human rights commission and local government commission, and initiated right to information act etc. In addition, most of the constitutional bodies were reshuffled for clearing them of partisan appointmentees and making them more effective.
All these actions were taken as per the desire of the people. No question was raised about whether the CTG was going beyond its jurisdiction while executing all the above functions. It was accepted by and large that this CTG was an exceptional one, as it was appointed under an unusual circumstance and replaced another CTG. Moreover, there was expectation and wide consensus that this CTG would initiate an improvement in the quality of political culture.
The proposed People's Representation Ordinance, along with its supporting rules for registration of political parties, will require a party to ensure its democratisation and transparency in operation and financial transaction. This has been the wish of the public in general, as it would allow common people to direct political party activities for their own benefit.
The political parties accepted the rules in principle and forwarded some suggestions accordingly. This was the primary step for reform of political parties and, ultimately, of the political culture.
The chief adviser called for the dialogue to discuss other issues in addition to the election, such as future governance of the country and improvement of the political culture. As per CTG, the dialogue was meant to obtain the views of different stakeholders on those issues, and the CTG would act as facilitator to come to a national consensus, which the CA termed "national charter."
An issue could be acceptance of the election result instead of outright rejection without utilising the legal means to get redress of any irregularity. It may be about making the future parliament more effective and getting rid of the tradition of boycotting the parliament. An issue could be how to avoid going for political programs like strikes, blockades etc. which disrupt economic activities.
To be united in making constitutional bodies like Election Commission (EC), Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Public Service Commission (PSC) etc. effective and free from being used to serve party interest. It may be agreed that the bureaucracy would be allowed to function as per service rules without any undue interference in appointment, posting, promotion etc. on party lines.
Is it possible for the political parties to come to a national consensus? If not, will it be possible for the people to impose their desire on them through a democratic process? Past experience indicates otherwise.
From 1991 onwards, the opposition in all the parliaments boycotted the parliament, and the government party always talked about the necessity of attending the parliament. Interestingly, the political parties changed sides regularly like the government of one parliament became the opposition in the next and again in government after that. Their views as regards attending the parliament and boycotting the same also changed regularly.
The ex-opposition, now government, talks about the merit of attending the parliament; and the ex-government, now opposition, talks about how futile it is to attend the parliament.
So, both the major political parties with their allies agreed about the merit of attending parliament and also of not attending the same. The people always wanted their representatives, whether in government or opposition, to attend the parliament and raise issues for them. But, interestingly, the parties that boycotted the parliament got at least an indirect endorsement of the people, as the boycotting side was always elected to power in the next general election.
Exactly the same is true for political programs of strikes, blockades etc., which are opposed as evil by the government side and are advocated as essential by opposition. The stand changes with change of position from government to opposition and from opposition to government.
The view of the people on this issue is very clear. Almost everybody feels that these programs are harmful as they create disruption in their lives. But, this program also got indirect endorsement of the people as the advocates of this disruptive violent protest won the subsequent elections.
So it may be safely concluded that there has to be a definite paradigm shift in our politics and political culture to achieve national consensus on various issues of future governance. Even if some points are agreed upon, it could be a challenge for the political parties to adhere to them in future. The consciousness of the general public can only impose the required consensus, and their alertness in taking proper action in time can ensure sticking to the same in future.

G.M.Quader is a former Member of Parliament.