Time for introspection

SINCE the 'election' of January 5 there has been growing criticism of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) for its inability to translate dissatisfaction against the Awami League (AL) regime into a popular mobilisation. Some have concluded that BNP has lost. Many have argued that the regime's success in holding the election is in itself a defeat for BNP, although Bangladesh history tells us that no election has ever been stopped by opposition activists once the election schedule was announced; the 1988 and February 1996 elections are cases in point. The cancellation of the 2007 election wasn't a result of the opposition movement but due to the intervention of the military.  
Anyone who was expecting that the election would be stopped altogether, unless deferred by the government, was living in a self-made bubble. BNP's post-election posture, too, gives the impression that it is demoralised and disorganised. Some analysts have praised the party for not continuing with disruptive programmes like blockade and general strikes, which were often violent.  
The criticism is warranted, particularly when the primary demand of the party -- installation of a caretaker administration to oversee the election -- had enormous support as recorded by the opinion polls throughout the previous year. But was BNP a step behind the ruling AL's strategic maneuvering since the 15th Amendment to the constitution? Whether the ruling party had any interest in holding an election participated in by the opposition is an open and shut question.
The post-mortems, to date, have identified three primary factors for the setback of BNP: the party's lack of mobilising capacity -- a reflection on the ability and/or dedication of the leadership; the party's alliance with, perhaps dependence on, the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI); and the adoption of violence as the only instrument of movement. One can add another factor, the party's lack of clarity on the issue of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT).  
The ruling party, particularly Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has long set breaking of the relationship with JI as a precondition for any dialogue with BNP. Criticism of the association with JI has gained further currency after the Resolution of the European Parliament on January 16, which urged BNP to disassociate itself from JI. Weeks before the resolution, BNP leader Khaleda Zia stated that her party's alliance with the JI was “not permanent” and that she would consider severing the relationship “when [the] time comes.” Khaleda Zia's detractors and some sympathisers now seem to be on the same page. But the question is whether BNP will wait for an opportune moment or make the decision which some of her party leaders and activists consider risky. Is the absence of the JI leaders in the 18-party alliance public meeting held on January 20 an indication? Time will tell.
There is a call for BNP and its leadership to engage in introspection. Some recent commentaries are prescriptive too: what BNP should do now. The party never carried out any kind of self-examination after its worst electoral performance in 2008. BNP should welcome these comments and undertake a soul searching. But it must understand that time is of the essence. Neither can it rush, nor can it procrastinate. Both have serious downsides.
As BNP is called upon to reflect, so should the ruling party. Quick action on the oath taking of the parliament members and the formation of the cabinet in contravention of conventions and constitutional provisos are sending a signal that it is comfortable with the 'victory' it has achieved. Should the ruling party be complacent with less than 20% participation of the electorate? Can it claim to be representative of the people, and a democracy? The bizarre arrangement with the Raushan Ersahd-led Jatiyo Party (JP) to act as 'a ruling-opposition hybrid' is not only unprecedented in parliamentary history but may also be an indication of the emergence of a one-party system. If the ruling party wants us to believe that this is not by choice, rather by default, a clear statement and urgent concrete steps are imperative.
The European Parliament's call to BNP to distance itself from JI is a reflection of their legitimate concern for Bangladesh, so is the call to the government “to find a compromise [with the opposition] which would give a chance to the Bangladeshi people to express their democratic will in a representative and credible way.” The ruling party and its supporters should be reminded that the resolution called for “an early election,” and to “offer voters a choice.”
They should also read the transcript of the debate in the UK House of Commons that took place on the same day the European Parliament adopted the resolution. Taking part in the debate Rushanara Ali, the sole member of Bangladeshi origin, said: “I hope that, as we move forward, we can work as partners and continue dialogue, despite our frustrations, to try to achieve free and fair elections and move beyond what has happened in recent months.” The jubilant tone and defiant mood of the government, and the repetition of the same arguments for not initiating a dialogue are worrying.
While the two major parties are asked to step up to the plate and think about their recent and future conduct for the sake of the nation, we should not forget about other parties which decided not to participate the election. Notwithstanding their size and reach, they too have a crucial role to play. If these parties and their leaders feet that a one-sided, non-inclusive election is detrimental to the nation and democracy they cannot accept the current state of governance as a fait accompli.
The nation has long been hostage to the whims of the two parties which engendered the present political situation. This should not be viewed as a battle between two parties; the other parties have stakes and responsibilities too. In the same spirit, may I ask the members of the civil society, who raised the red flag prior to the election about the long-term implications of a non-participatory election, to explain where the nation is heading and what role they intend to play in this journey?

The writer is professor and chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Illinois State University, USA.