Are some people always trying to ‘oust’ the government?

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made a remark that assumes significance given the rueful undertone that her statement conveyed. This was a follow-up of her statement last month. She is reported to have said, "Some people are always trying to regroup and oust the government." That despite all the developments that have taken place in the last decade under her watch. She also alluded to the effort of some political parties to seek help from foreigners, "hoping that someone abroad will hold their hands and put them on the throne." She had reportedly said in end April that a group of political parties had joined hands with the BNP-Jamaat alliance to try to oust her government. And she wondered what the fault of the Awami League government was, and why they wanted to oust it. Here is my tuppenny worth of opinion.

Let's pose a counterquestion: Why, indeed, would anyone try to "oust" a political party that is well ensconced in power, and has so much to show on the economic front? In this regard, we would like to believe that the parties that the prime minister named and the people she mentioned in her remarks are well established and recognised political parties and people with long political credentials. Hence, the term "oust" that denotes a more sinister intention than a legal political process of replacing a party in power through elections does not apply here. "Unseat," perhaps, may be more appropriate here. We are totally opposed to supra-political means of changing government and would like to believe that all legal political parties—which all opposition parties are—also subscribe to this principled view. Anything contrary must be curbed ruthlessly. The last such intervention was that by Gen Moin in the political process in 2008. The Awami League continues to enjoy the fruits of that intervention. Some of the above-mentioned changes were welcomed with the comment of the Awami League leader that "we are not unhappy," and in 2008, the party assured that all the ordinances of the caretaker government would be validated if the party was elected to office, nay "power." And indeed, most of those were.

The economic story is astounding, but who will answer for the thousands of crores of taka that has been siphoned off from the country? Despite the not-so-sound condition of the banking sector, more and more private banks were allowed to open—an example of crony capitalism. And most of those who deliberately violated banking rules are yet to be brought to justice.

The less said about shrinking political space to the opposition, the better. Thus, when the ruling party taunts the main opposition party for the lack of its presence on the streets or losing political relevance, they know one of the main reasons why. Even a gathering of politicians within the walls of a house is considered clandestine and, in some cases, forced to break up.

The politicisation of the administration, particularly the police, has set a very bad precedence. For example, did the Rab chief not exceed his remit when he warned against protesting the scrapping of Article 370 in India in Bangladesh (New Age, August 10, 2019)? Some of the recent comments of senior police officials sound like those of party cadres. The regression of law and order is exposed by the way law enforcers have acted on a selective basis in many instances.

As for "hoping that someone abroad will hold their hands and put them on the throne," running to the foreigners has been the cheap stock-in-trade of all our political parties. But the only direct involvement in our elections that one can recall was when Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh personally tried to prevail on Ershad to join the 2014 parliamentary polls when all the other opposition parties had boycotted it (Dhaka Tribune, July 1, 2014). Without an opposition, the election would have been far more questionable than it was.

Then there is the issue of the rule of law, which has severely eroded the ruling party's image. There is nothing wrong with the law, but everything with the order. When law is applied selectively, it becomes the rule of men. When a convicted person belonging to the ruling party can go abroad for treatment without any impediment, while another has to wait for government benediction, it betrays the attitude of the administration towards the rule of law, and does nothing to enhance the government's image. There are examples where law has been applied depending on who the alleged accused was.

Last, but not the least, let's restate that it is the constant effort of the opposition in any country to unseat the party in power through elections by exposing the failures of the incumbent and offering better alternatives to the public. And anti-government utterances and criticisms are absolutely the established norm in a free political system. This cannot be painted as anti-state activities, which has been done during the tenure of the current regime. Criticism of anyone remotely associated with the high-ups of the party in power has invited the wrath of the administration, as was the case with writer Mushtaq and cartoonist Kishore. The former died in custody in February 2021, and Kishore's case lingers. The Digital Security Act, and the proposed Data Protection Act—which is seen as being legislated with next year's parliamentary elections in mind—have curbed and will curb the freedom of expression even more. The worst sufferer has been the media, whose self-censorship has reached to a weird level, and criticism of political personalities has come to be regarded as lese-majesty.

Have the people really swallowed the ruling party's mantra of Development before Democracy? That is what the Awami League should ask itself.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan, ndc, psc (retd) is a former associate editor of The Daily Star.