& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Leaders Mustn't Fail Our People Again

by Ahmed Zaker
*** What weare concerned about m the style of political leadership that can bring about cluangea in government to make it more responsive to people and their urgent development ***
PEOPLE have Anally exercised their franchise and clearly voted for a A reasonably free and fair election has been held The cynics would of course argue that precious little would change. because the inequitable institutions and power structures would not allow the vast majority to attain their economic freedom. Nevertheless, a mass upsurge has overthrown an autocratic regime, which earned world wide notoriety of being one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Country's reputation had reached its lowest point; its economy, eroded by corruption and mismanagement. was In shambles The elections represent an ardent desire of the people to bring about a change and ensure that the future government will more adequately reflect their aspirations.
But is It possible to bring about a change In the quality of our government? Most of the institutions and systems which could have reinforced the rule of law. have been deliberately demolished by the previous regime. Strong authoritarian traditions were already estab lished during the rule of Awaml League and the BNP. These were aggravated by the arbitrary style of government and the mindless psycho-phancy which characterised Ershad’s rule for more than nine years. The judiciary, the legislature, the administrative services, the Institutions of local government, the political parties, the universities and schools, have all come under
attack. In moat cases these have been destroyed or at best have been so badly mutilated and demoralised that they no longer serve the purpose for which they were established Government to no longer a credible institution In Bangladesh! Under these circumstances to it feasible to contemplate a more responsive. more accountable and more efficient government sys tem to emerge following a democratic transition? The odds are probably too many.
The people have very clearly given their verdict. The
leaders who take over the reins of next government must try their utmost to abide by it They need to provide the lead ership that people have voted for; the new leadership must be honest; it must have a sense of priorities in development and it must not once again try to develop a personality cult based on senseless psycho-phancy. This means that they must set their goals; they must have the capacity to draw up a practical Implementation strategy, finally they must have the strength to Implement it. The numerous task forces mobilised by Professor Rehman Sobhan would have Identified and prioritised some of the urgent Issues which the new government will have to cope with. Presumably these would be technical matters, amenable to technical solutions. But to my mind we are
concerned not so much with problems which are technical in nature. Rather what we are concerned about is the style of EoliUcal leadership that can ring about changes In government to make It more responsive to people and their urgent development needs.
As we look back at the past elections in 1947, 1954, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1981 and Anally the historic 1991 elections. It is obvious that the people had unambiguously
given tneir veraicts. iney had signalled to their leaders as to what were their aspirations ; they had very clearly given the endorsements sought by their leaders. Ironically enough It was the leaders who had failed the people. It is the leaders who had failed to fulfil the mandates given to them. One need not be engrossed with a pathological passion to find faults with Individuals, but still some generalisations can be made. It would be useful if we could do some stocktaking and analyse our shortcomings a bit more candidly. Leadership in the past had failed for a number of reasons. The military bureaucratic leadership tn Pakistan for example failed to recognise the rights of the ma jority and Its distinct cultural heritage Instead of cultivating democratic values It decided to crush them through an au-
tocratlc style of government Awami League received an overwhelming mandate after liberation, at a time when no doubt the government had to deal with many crises i.e. in frastructure was In ruins, armed groups were terrorising people, drought and floods had destroyed crops. Yet the government was too personalised, identified too much with the charisma of a single person. A coterie of psychophants had grown around Sheikh Mujib. A
ruthless party militia was raised that would not hesitate to murder for political reasons. Arbitrary decisions, like the farcical fourth amendment which overnight transformed the parliamentary form of gov ernment into a presidential one. could be taken at the behest of the government leaders. Ziaur Rahman as a freedom fighter and because of personal honesty, had also developed a charisma of his own. Yet his style of leadership remained quite authoritarian and arbitrary. A mutlneous army was ruthlessly suppressed: many institutions were destroyed reportedly through cunning politicking by his trusted lieutenants. Political parties were split and fractious politics was encouraged. The authoritarian traditions were frequently backed by ruthless actions at
the behest of cronies w-rounding the two chartonwtic leaders It to not suggested, however that the two leaders did not have many other destr able qualities. But what was missing was the capacity to promote a government that to based on a genuine consultative process and democratic values which would encourwe others to express their views on an issue objectively, without fear of scorn or reprisal.
A democratic government cannot of course emerge overnight in Bangladesh It has
taken other countries many decades or even hundreds of years. Given the complexity of problems tn Bangladesh. the poor state of the economy. our dependence one external economic assistance, social backwardness and a rapidly deteriorating environment, it would be impossible for any single leader. however intelligent or well-meaning he or she may be. to cope with these problems . singlehandedly. There is need for collective wisdom; there is need to listen to other views; there is need for regular consultations with others who may hold divergent views but may be equally concerned about the nation's welfare and progress. There is need for leaders to be a bit more humble; acknowledging one's mistakes when one makes them. Unfortunately, we don’t have
tea—ybi amongst our leaders. The thataftadtattamtawto — •tth folded hands to her elec torate and pubheiy T li for the excesses committed during emergency But K came after a costly mistake and she had to pay the price for IL
Pitfalls of an otherwise charismatic leader who decides to travel alone, are too many^ He tends to get sur
foses sighTrfSia? to pittaT-touch with reality But deci' slonmaklng tn modem government Is never the outcome of any whizkid s intellect In the political context of a fragmented society like that of Bangladesh today It requires careful and discreet blending of many viewpoints, many skills, many experiences. The next leader must be a consensus builder, a harmoniser of divergent views, a healer of many wounds. Another leader, even though charismatic and steadfast tn character, but with authoritarian temper who Is not prepared to consult simply cannot deliver the goods
People by exercising their franchise have once again in a forthright manner chosen their leaders. This time they have voted not for an authoritarian style of government; they have voted for moderation. balanced development and accountability tn administration. Leaders need to listen to the voices of people. They must not fail them again!