How Different is Awami League from Others?
Awami League was expected to be a political party different from many others. It started its platform with the premier objective of emancipating the Bengalees and carried out its historic task with successful leading of the glorious war of liberation. Its leader was elevated to the undisputed leader of the land while the history of his dedicated struggle became the history of the new-born nation. However, the party leadership could not enshrine itself as gloriously while administering the country. Notwithstanding the countless limitations quite natural of any war-ravaged new nation, Awami League's short-lived tenure at helm of the state does not invoke many cherished memories in the hearts of many of its sympathisers. Nevertheless, the Awami League is still blessed with a long list of patrons who are not guided by the avidity of any materialistic reciprocation from any quarter. No other political party in the country can boast of having such a stream of devotees around to help sustain and propagate its philosophy. Awami League is, therefore, additionally obliged to be accountable for its (wrong) deeds to its numerous benefactors all around the globe.
It was expected that the "I leaders would take lessons not only from their own failed rule, but also from the futile strategy of their adversaries. But their activities, especially in the last few months, are reflecting otherwise and have put them in the dock and placed their well wishers in mumbles. It is obvious from their successive postures that they are bent on carrying out with their well-orchestrated demeanours to further tarnish the image of the party and the country.
Accepting an honourary doctorate from the Australian National University, the honourable PM declared, "I would like to assure you that as long as I live I will dedicate myself to the rule of law and democracy......". While the honourable PM was making her solemn pledge at one of the highest seats of learning on earth, her political advisor was busy with his cohorts to make the post-mortem of democracy snatching away the voting right of her constituents back home. Kader Siddique, despite his numerous past flaws, has shown the highest respect for democracy by resigning from the parliament after his resignation from the AL. He was no Alauddin or Swapan. In fact, Tangail by-election was a win-win situation for the AL. Had Kader Siddique won; it would have been a victory for a valiant freedom fighter that would translate into a sweet triumph for the values for which AL is genuinely boastful. If the utterance of the PM's political advisor that the "Tangail by-election was a prestige issue for us" is true, then he has a long way to traverse in absorbing the essence of democracy.
Interference with the formation of the committee that was proposed by the CEC to investigate the alleged irregularities in the Tangail by-election does neither bode well for the rule of law nor for democracy. This indiscreet manoeuvre of the Law Ministry has helped the opposition score big points on their allegation regarding the independence of the election commission.
As if that was enough, Kader Siddique's constitutional right to assemble with his followers in order to form a political party has been blatantly violated by the fascist acts and hooliganism of the ruling party goons. If this is called 'democracy', then the PM owes a long lecture to the nation defining her perception of democracy and its nuances! The PM at a press conference has denied her party's involvement in the hooliganism. If this is to be believed, can the AL chief escape from her responsibility as the PM to bring the culprits into book? The government does not need the help of Scotland Yard to apprehend the self-confessed 'heroes'! If Kader Siddique and his followers were carrying arms as alleged by the PM, whose responsibility is it to disarm them and put them into justice? Kader Siddique's constitutional right to hold a public meeting in the Paltan Maidan has been denied. It is beyond the comprehension of any one with simple logical sense what are the AL leaders up to in dealing with Kader Siddique? What could be more mockery of the constitutional rules at the advent of the new millennium?
Political antagonism in our society, and especially in the educational institutions, is not unknown to the AL leaders. Was it too abstruse to visualise that any move to decorate any political leader, no matter how genuine, would trigger vehement opposition from the opposite camp? The PM had the laurels from almost all the continents of the globe. What went on earth that enticed the DU authority to confer this local laurel to the PM locking the democracy inside the Rokeya Hall?
The politicians of the country are persistently not used to taking lessons either from their own mistakes or from those of their adversaries. BNP did not have any realisation from the mistake of the AL that a duly elected government cannot be dislodged by 'mass movement'. Even they are not guided by the recollections of their own experience that it took eighty-one semi-final assaults and nine long years for the BNP before finally dislodging the illegal administration of Ershad, notwithstanding the absolute alliance of their present lone but very strong adversary.
Likewise, the AL is determined to go ahead with the voter-less elections in the name of 'constitutional obligations' following the foot steps of the BNP which recited the identical phrase in support of the infamous February 15 general election. In the process, they are transforming their elected mayors into non-elected ones as they did already for Chittagong City Corporation, who has now lost all his credibility to administer. As reported in the press, a section of the ruling party leaders are very much in favour of going ahead with the Upazilla polls keeping the opposition parties at bay. They are in the belief that it will strengthen their organisational base that will be, in their views, a positive element in winning the next general election. Here again, they are disregarding the lessons form Ershad's supposedly similar hypothesis in the past which envisaged that the Upazilla chairmen would act as a foundation to keep his administration alive. Time and again, our politicians failed to understand that moral authority far outweighs the legal authority of any elected official and the moral authority only flourish from the free and full participation of the electorates in question.
After what happened in the Tangail by-election, can the AL deny that the UZ election would not be fair under a partisan administration? The opposition parties have been handed with a major plus by the redundant acts of the ruling party in addition to its naked interference with the formation of the election enquiry commission by the CEC. It is the responsibility of the ruling party to bring the opposition into confidence if their demands carry some degree of merits in the eyes of the people. UZ election, although a local one, has a great degree of national semblance. The ruling party will do a great service to the nation if they, in concurrence with the opposition, bring required legislative changes in the parliament in order to defer this crucial poll until the next general election. This concession is likely to convince the opposition to take part in the city corporation polls, since there is little scope for any ruling party to rig these polls as they take place in the heart of the big cities. If they don't, they will lose the pluses they have gained through the ill-advised acts of their adversaries.
Prime Minister Khaleda Zia visited the Islamic University and named two halls: one bears the name of Ziaur Rahman and the other carries her own name. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina while visiting the same University also named two halls: one carries the name of Bangabandhu, while the other bears the name of her mother. Both of them could not find any other names outside their families to glorify the University. What an identical thought both of them equally nourishes!
Two recent cabinet appointments by the PM indicated a flagrant violation of the spirit of the constitution. The provision of technocrat ministers in the cabinet was not meant for the rejected politicians. The authors of the constitution have some other category of people in mind. The PM has imposed the politicians to represent the nation who have not been accepted even by their local constituents. The act of the PM is an absolute mockery of democratic principles. If they were pressures from the party workers to make them the ministers, then their wishes were certainly not in tune with those of the people who rejected option to send them to the legislature. To make the matter look worse, they are given the port-folios snatched away from two of the most prudent, popular and eloquent politicians who on their own right possess the requisite distinctions to lead the government. In the 'jumbo' cabinet, there are two ministers without portfolios. Why the national exchequer should be burdened with the politicians, who have no service to offer to the nation?
The AL leaders, especially the political advisor to the PM, is very often ridiculing the recent opposition alliance as the 'unholy' marriage of the BNP with the 'autocrats' and the 'razakars'. Can the Advisor explain to the nation how his party's alliance with the same autocrats and razakars was a holy one no matter how limited its objective was? AL leaders are using the spirit of liberation war as a gimmick to suit their own objective. The political advisor knows more than any one else, how many key appointments have been made during AL's tenure, at both home and abroad, with not only incompetent but people who were vehemently opposed to the creation of the country and still hold on to their contemptuous assertions about the birth and the sovereignty of Bangladesh, eclipsing aside many of the talented individuals who played the historic role before and during the birth of the nation. The previous administrations were even hesitant to please them with the lime light positions not only because of their incompetence but for fear of adverse repercussions from the pro-liberation forces as well. Only the PM's insiders are aware of the miraculous principles that guided her to make those appointments.
On the positive side for the AL that it is blessed with the adversaries who are equally adamant to pay back the AL with the same coins. Their persistent destructive activities are locking the disgruntled common masses in the neutral ground. None of their programmes was able to attract support of the masses and has been futile in shaking the foundation of the government.
Bangabandhu Parishad is not meant to be a front organisation of the AL. Its founders created this organisation with a very specific philosophy that is supposed to attract personalities from very plural political beliefs, including Dr. Kamal Hossain and Kader Siddique. They, for sure, did not envisage it as a vehicle for its leaders to share power with the AL. Appointment of the Secretary of the Bangabandhu Parishad to the highly visible political position of the political advisor to the PM has apparently pelted an irreversible dent on the sanctity of this revered organisation. Millions of admirers of Bangabandhu, all around the globe, do not wish to see this organisation depraved down due to the iniquitous acts of the AL leaders. As such it seems the PM will do a great service to this entity and to the sacred name of our founding father if she relieves her political advisor from the burden of his present position or ask him to resign from his position in the Bangabandhu Parishad.
In any matured democracy the responsible press plays an important role in shaping the policies of both the government and the opposition. A judicious editorial or a column in the Toronto Star is good enough for any minister in Canada, both federal and provincial, to resign or to be fired. Fortunately, Bangladesh's news world is also blessed with at least a few dailies whose analytical views and political acuity are comparable to at least some of the world's best. Elated by their experiences in the mellowed democracies, even many of the well wishers of the AL have been eager to focus out the current pitfalls of the AL government taking advantage of the freedom of press. But it seems to me that the AL government is not pledged-bound to the freedom of press; it is rather committed to the indifference to the press.
The writer is a Professor at School of Engineering and Manager, Sheridan Quality Institute, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.
Comments