Politics and polemics: A South African parallel

DO the current developments in the political scene look as though the country is moving ahead along a well-charted way towards reconciliation and a return to democracy? Though some of the roadblocks seem to have been averted, internal strife in the parties and inter-party bickering to gain or retain power circumventing the political and electoral reforms once agreed to in principle, still seem to pose a threat. Mere acquiescence to the adoption of forms of reform rather than its spirit and substance, more as measure of expediency than anything else, cannot help return to desired democracy. For this, a change of heart is required perhaps on the part of both the administration and the political parties.
People are therefore looking forward to the outcome of the talks between the EC and the parties. And frankly, a spirit of give and take and a strategic shift in their tactics can make a U-turn in our politics as had been done in South Africa by De Klerk and Mandela uniting the black and the white national parties together to form the Republic of South Africa.
How had this been done there in South Africa and why? South Africa is inhabited by a large number of tribes in different regions with their distinctive culture and tradition. Fighting for a cause is their passion. Their tribal interests often conflict with one another. Mandela himself had been in prison for 27 years. Even then, the skilful politician that Mandela is, he achieved his goal with an unprecedented peace initiative without any remorse or rancour. Mandela explained this in an interview with the Time magazine on the occasion of his 90th birthday. This needs to be closely studied by two of our estranged political parties and their leaders and, if possible, emulated. The interview was given to the managing director of the Time magazine who helped Mandela a couple of years ago in writing his best- seller autobiography.
Mandela, in this report, reminisced about his long imprisonment when he shifted from his previous stance of uncompromising rigidity on the ANC's resolve for no negotiation with the government from within the prison cell. But with a change in the government that replaced apartheid supporting Botha by liberal De Klerk (who released Mandela unconditionally) it necessitated a certain amount of flexibility in strategy to achieve his goal. To wipe out the barrier of the apartheid by struggle alone would have taken a long time and may be a great deal of bloodshed and suffering.
Most of his compatriots were not happy with this shift initially, but Mandela, by his tact and skill, managed to convince them of its need. And, ultimately it did pay off. What happened later was far beyond anybody's imagination. The black and the white combined themselves to form a united Republic of South Africa with Mandela as the President and the former President DeKlerk as his Deputy with the ANC controlling the National Assembly.
Clearly, the secret of his success is his honesty and sincerity of purpose combined with a sense of humility. After he chose to stand down after completion of his five-year term from power, when many people in the country and abroad started pampering him as the closest thing to a secular saint, an embarrassed Mandela said, -- far from it, he was merely a politician, and a pedestrian-politician for that matter. He learnt quite a few other lessons in his long struggle for freedom and democracy, which he applied prudently and discretely in difficult situation and found an acceptable solution for each thereby earning the title of a master politician, and winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 along with De Klerk.
In contrast, politicians in the subcontinent traditionally were always obsessed with polemics instead of exercising political wisdom and manoeuvering. During the entire period of apprenticeship, first for self-rule, and then, for full freedom, politicians of the sub-continent -- of which Bangladesh is a microcosm -- of every shade, colour and ideology played on polemics excessively. Politics is generally to steer the affairs of a polity along the path of progress and prosperity, maintaining peace and order in the society and also uplifting its social and economic condition, whereas polemics is an unholy means of usurping political power indulging in verbiage, mudslinging and nitpicking using the political clout for self-aggrandizement, that leads to corruption in various forms at all levels of the society.
Unlike Mandela et al, politicians here seem to find it hard to remain content with the epithet of a politician. With large followings among the half-literate, credulous and gullible voters in rural areas, using money and muscle power most of our politicians are prone to think that they have become leaders overnight with their mandate and try to portray a larger-than-life image. Quite often, they find polemics very rewarding.
Ever since one-eleven, in the miasma of political currents and crosscurrents, none of the two major parties or even the lesser parties seems to be keen to accommodate each other. The caretaker government is committed to create a level-playing field for holding a free and credible election according to the road map announced on July15 last year, but it is grid-logged almost at every stage. At this point of time South Africa seems to offer a close parallel to the Bangladesh situation. One would only wish that the two major parties had studied Mandela and learnt a few of his lessons.

The writer is a former Director General of External Publicity. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]