Losing a battle to win a war?

THE rather undramatic end to the three plus months of blockade punctuated by strikes has elicited a sigh of relief from hartal stricken people of Bangladesh. But it does not necessarily bring an end to the political uncertainty that the country may continue to face in the coming months and years. This is so because a weakened opposition and absence of agitation and protests do not promote growth of democracy in a country. 

In the three-month long conflict, sacrifices were mainly made by people in whose name the opposition started its battle. The devotees and defenders of the party may call this exit a tactical retreat, but cynics will view this as an admission of the mistaken strategy and egotistic belief of the party leader that time was ripe for a mass upheaval. Unfortunately, absent from this strategy was an evaluation of the happenings only a year before when the party had tried similar methods of non-stop strikes and blockades to persuade people to throw in their lot with the movement. 

We can speculate on the change of strategy or tactic of the opposition, the most obvious of which is sheer exhaustion and a slow implosion of party organisation because of internal conflict. The other could be the upcoming Mayoral elections in the two big cities where several members of the BNP want the party to participate. This is despite its leader's public vow not to participate in elections held by the current election commission. This vow did not hold before either when the party supported candidates standing in the local Upazila elections. It may be that hopes are riding high among some in the party that they could cash on the anti-government sentiments in many and probably win these elections. But it is also possible that the exit from the policy of confrontation is because of a realisation amongst the prudent section of the party, however late it may be, that a political tactic of defiance based on arm wrestling with state power will lead the party nowhere. 

One hopes that the exit of the main opposition party from its policy of violent confrontation will lead to a more constructive engagement of the party in the democratic process. That there will be a lesson learnt from previous failed tactics of hostile baiting and it will give place to other time honoured practices of wooing the public for their support. 

But this may be a tall order in the environment that now exists in the country. For our political parties including the government have yet to demonstrate to the people and the world at large that they are committed to the preservation of people's rights. 

Three important ingredients of a meaningful democracy are freedom of speech and movement, rule of law, and good governance. One cannot say with conviction that our institutions operate within these parameters.  A major reason given by the Opposition when they launched their attack on the government was that they wanted to restore these operative principles. Unfortunately, the path they adopted was one of violence and gross disregard for of law.  You cannot fight for rule of law with lawlessness; neither can you stand for people's rights when you violate their rights to move and speak. It is one or the other. 

People's dissatisfaction with an incumbent party is a world-wide occurrence. That is why in most democratic countries the ruling party loses in elections in a cyclical fashion. We had seen that in our country as well, although not in the same manner as in other mature democracies. Sometimes our incumbents need a harder nudge. But all such changes happen at people's will through a democratic process where all institutions including the political parties play their respective roles with integrity.

The end to the political nightmares of the last several months is a welcome development. This may have come at a price that we may not be aware of, some are obvious and some not. It may have come about because of determined and heavy handed actions from the government. It may also have come about because of a severely weakened and demoralised opposition. But even as it puts the country on a relatively peaceful platform, going forward with a silenced opposition may not augur well for our democracy. 

For a vibrant democracy we don't only need a good government but also a viable opposition that acts as the conscience of the public and oversee the government. Otherwise, we cease to have democracy and end up with autocracy.  The coming Mayoral elections might be a small sample, but this sample can foretell who will eventually win the long war for democracy.

The writer is a political analyst and commentator.