& 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

A Lesson from History

The Third View

by Mahfuz Anam
***There are many reasons why the simile with Bhutto's election of '77 needs to be recalled It was the fight between the political opponents that destroyed both politics and democracy. It was the short-sightedness of the then leadership — on both sides — that ruined them alLIN a pre-election meeting with newspaper editors Begum Zia. in a rare emo tlonal outburst, said If they (Awami League leaders) could talk to Pakistanis to solve political problems, why can't they talk to us? We are at least not Pakistanis." Though she did not say so clearly, I am guessing that she was referring td Sheikh Mujib s talks with Gen Yahya and Zulflquer All Bhutto in March 71 to resolve the political Crisis emanating from the elections of '70.
Taking the cue from Begum Zia’s simile of a situation that ■ refers to Pakistan. I would like to draw another simile, also from Pakistan, which may provide us with some extremely valuable political lessons for the moment I am afraid many of my friends from the ruling party will -be terribly upset for what 1 am about to write. But then it is the duty of a Journalist to say what is in the best interest of the country and its people, regardless of how unpalatable if may appear.
In a constitutionally due election iq 1977, and in face of acute opposition objection Zulflquer Alt Bhutto and his Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) 'contested, being certain that they would win Most observers concurred in his view. Yet his over zealous party apparatus could not take the
* chance. With or without Bhutto s knowledge, as I would like to believe in the case of Khaleda Zia too (it is yet not clear who gave the orders to cheat), widespread ballot stuffing took place resulting in an enormous victory for the PPP. Bhutto and many of his party high-ups returned unopposed The Combined opposition rejected the' election outcome and launched a massive political movement that toppled Bhutto's governnfent. For Pakistan. the movement did not bring the required result. Military Intervened, destroyed democracy, and pushed back Pakistan only God knows how
far back. The cost of Bhutto's political greed' to the people, and to the State of Pakistan, is a matter of history.
The point to note here is that like Begum Zia, Bhutto was popular, and Just as likely cbuld have won the polls handsomely without rigging Why Bhutto and the PPP had this sudden pang of insecurity and panicked intb malpractice is one of those "what ifs" of history. that can better be speculated upon rather than divined.
Closer to home. Magura may not have been as elaborately intended by Begum Zia herself as It turned out to be. May be the signal was to try hard and to be extremely alert. But we know what happened, and we also know what Its cost has been to our politics, economy and the nation.
Points of difference with the Bhutto simile also needs to be taken note of. First, unlike in our case, all the opposition parties of Pakistan participated in '77 election, and the talk of widespread rigging came up only afterwards. Second, it was Bhutto’s malpractice that united the opposition which, till that moment, was desperately divided.
ft is. therefore. not inappropriate to conclude that we may end up making similar costly mistakes unless we move in a radically different direction than Bhutto did in '77 — namely in a path of reconciliation and consensus and not of confrontation.
It Is one thing to proclaim the validity of the 15 February elections in public and It is quite another to believe the same in private. While the former can be taken as a part of public posturing, the latter, it indulged in. can become the cause of vital political errora
that may Jeopardise democracy. and In a wider sense, our future.
According to BNP insiders there are two clear positions on the lust concluded election. One lobby is of the view that BNP should carry on with this parliament as long as It can Since the level of turn out is not a factor in determining the legality of the sixth parliament, therefore BNP should concentrate in moving ahead with its own development and other policies. The opposition, according to this lobby, will have no other option but to call for frequent strikes and other dis-
ruptive activities. which will lead to Its further alienation and unpopularity.
The other lobby Is of the view that immediate steps should be taken to bring the mainstream opposition parties Into the fold of national politics. The way to do this would be to start immediate negotiations with them about holding the next election in which all parties will participate.
Which oi these two lobbies Begum Zia will listen to Is the critical question of the moment. Given the PM'i track record it is possible that she will be inclined towards the former Here she is likely to come under pressure of the donors who are very keen to put the political criaia behind, and bring the reform agenda back on track. The donors
went along with Begum Zia In holding the elections primarily because of the constitutional necessity, a fact that angered Sheikh Hasina and caused her to lash out in the Engineers Institute speech recently. But they are unlikely to be fellow travelers of BNP's agenda to out manoeuvre the opposition out of future politics, especially when the prospect of severe political unrest is obvious.
The task of the reconcilia-. tion lobby is made harder by the extreme positions already taken by the opposition Its declaration that it is unlikely to sit with any future govern-
ment or accept any decision of the sixth parliament, has already made the 'anti-reconciliation lobby stropger. and may further stiffen Begum Zia's own attitude.
Numerous suggestions put forward by this paper and by eminent citizens and groups in the past two years have been of no avail. Both the ruling party and the opposition ruthlessly followed their own respective agenda, oblivious‘of the cost to the nation, its people, and to democracy Their attitude is unlikely to change. Yet we continue to speak our mind in the hope that however late In the day. sense will prevail. .In that spirit we would like to put forward the following suggestions
Serious negotiations must be restarted For that to hap-
pen negotiations will have to preceded by some unilateral declarations by the ruling party about its willingness to do the following:
a) hold the next general elections as soon as is physically possible:
b) agree to a caretaker government to be tn place to supervise that election;
There are other Issues of electoral rolls and recasting of the election commission which may be taken up at the negotiating stage.
Unilateral declarations to these ends will greatly ease tension between the two sides and create conditions for the resumption of talks. Just invitations for talks, without a declaration of the type as suggested above, will strengthen the hands of the hard-liners in the opposition, who never wanted, and still do not want, understanding of any sort, and whose only wish is to topple this government by force.
Both sides have come a long way from their original positions on these issues. The concept of caretaker government has come to a 'five plus five formula'. The idea of an outsider. non-elected person heading a caretaker government needs to be seriously reconsidered by the opposition. Here the ruling party's position that an unelected leader cannot be allowed to take precedence of elected representatives is well taken.
Considering the various facets of the problem, we thitik that the President as the head of the caretaker government provides the best chances for an amicable solution to the current' political. Broblem. It may be recalled lat both sides had converged on such a concept Just prior to
the collapse of the talks before the elections.
By her call to the President to take executive power from the current government of Khaleda Zia. Sheikh Hasina appears to answer her own objection. raised earlier, as to where executive authority should rest as when a caretaker government is put into place.
By now both the sides must be aware as to the havoc that their actions have wrought on the economy. Whatever chance there were of our economy taking off. has been effectively destroyed Instead of coming to Bangladesh, foreign investors are going to Burma apd Vietnam. We will never be able .to fully gauze the tremendous price that we had to pay for the political crisis of the last three years. What is most depressing is that even after such a long period, we see no end of this dark tunnel. In fact all indications are that the crisis is likely to deepen further.
There are many reasons why the simile with Bhutto's election- of '77 needs to be recalled. It was the fight between the political opponents that destroyed both politics and democracy. It was the shortsightedness of the then leadership — on both sides — that ruined them all. It is not only about the extra-constitutional Intervention That we are talking about. There is the more immediate question of public faith, trust and respect for politicians and politics as such that is coming into question. People are asking "Are our leaders fit for democracy? Do they know how to govern in a democratic manner?" Once public faith is lost, representative government cannot survive very long. The election that has just been held can claim neither to reflect public will, nor to constitute an acceptable exercise to bring about a new government. Begum Zia must realise it. and as such opt for the reconciliation path'.