ON the commemoration of the 25th year of our Independence, there should have been widespread cause for jubilation, instead, what we witness Is a pail, of gloom and depression as we lace {the threat of economic destruction, an erosion of democratic rights. and cessation of all cultural and, civic activities.

In short, the present political crisfs has thrown us into a state of paralysis. Moot of us love our country, had rejoice in the beauty of this land, the bounty and Infinite variety that Nature provides us with, and the Warmth of our people Above all. we are proud of our history, the liberation struggle which led to our independence. Tills nation Is also know for its fortitude in meeting hardships and the Va garies of Nature.

It is therefore incredible that both our present and our future has to be hostage to a political stalemate, which could have been easily solved by an exercise of rationality and mill This however calls for some clarity in understanding the present political crisis and in general the evolving nature of our political institutions, the modus operand! of our political parties etc. Although I lack expert knowledge on the matter. I would like to propose an explanation as to why we are in such a deep political crisis, based on what I have observed In the past few years

My contention is that at the root of the crisis Is an alienation of the Interest of political Srties from the Interests of e people. Things have come

to such a state that all political parties have viewed tneir interests in a very narrow sense o coincide these not with the interest of their respective constituencies Ie the people but with the Interests of only their membership'. both cadres and leaders.

In this situation therefore, most of the people are unrepresented and without a voice, being merely silent spectators, even though their very livelihood Is at stake. On the other hand, to the political parties which dominate the scene, the plight of the people; whether their present despair or their future condition, be it as acute as a famine or extreme lawlessness. is an Issue which can be safely ignored Whether it Is the ruling party or those in opposition, what beems to matter most Is power and ego

But power for what purpose9 Tne legitimate question for the people is whether power vested irf one party or another will make any differ ence in their lives, or will It simply degenerate into a situa tlon where power merely ben efits members of the party or parties In question, alongwith those who ean receive some patronage In the process If this Is a true representation of our political scene, then the sad truth is that what we have Is not a multi party democracy, but the play of multiple fac

tlon*. And factionalism, as we know, is an extremely degen erate stkte. which even a broad-based popular party Is In danger of falling into, if It loses touch with Its constituency, the people.

My understanding of the matter may not be too far from the truth, given that in the last few years, no other issue has been part of the political debate. apart from that of a caretaker government This may in Itself be magnanimous on the part of the opposition, because a caretaker government gives an equal chance to the ruling party to be re-elected.

Resisting this and. going ahead with a one-party elec tlon by the BNP did not show much respect for principles, or for democracy But the issue does not rest here Otherwise, we would not be seeing such dlvislwmess amongst different sections of civil society to give support to the ruling party or the opposition. If the political parties have no agenda beyond the Interest of its membership any support Is likely to be tenuous, and based on an understanding of to what extent one s self-interest will be met by giving support, rather than on the basis of principles or what is considered to be the social good, despite the fact that there are some whose sympathies are quite genuine.

One also cannot rule out

some confusion in the matter, so that one does not know whom to support. Nor can one rule out fear, because either a failure to give support, or lending support to one party or an other, inevitably lead* to threats and harm' as we have witnessed in the Ust few months. This is of course a far cry from democracy, as la commonly understood, and the spontaneous support to .poll cie* and programmes that it allows. This again bring* u* to the crux of the matter, a singular absence of any policy or programme from the agenda of political parties which the people can identify with, in recent history.

Given the factional nature of present day politics, and the total alienation of the political parties from the people, the ruling party did not have to Justify any of their policies or failures. Thus they were not accountable to the electorate for the fertiliser crisis, for alleged corruption, for mounting crimes, for failure to solve the problem of traffic congestion or pollution, or for disparities in the income distribution.

In short, the failure to respond to any of the felt needs oi the people Nor did It have to publicly justify any particular policy, such as Import liberal! sation. privatization, or Indus trial sickness, be It good or bad. The opposition on the

other hand had very little to *ay on these Issues either, or what they pian to do which is likely to be different, once they are voted to power

This is definitely ridiculous and quite contrary to what we have experienced In our own political history Thus we know that a Maulana Bhashanl or a Sheikh Mujibur Rahman knew the pulse of the nation, for they worked with the people, peasants, workers, teachers, students and industrialists. Even a minor leader in our past had to earn his support through hard work with the masses

Needless to s^y. this was not based on the ability to bestow favours to particular individuals or the ability to channel State resources to build a road or a school m his locality Contrast this with the Kesent scene where farmers.

isinessmen or garment workers have to beg with the political parties for the right to work, or for supply of essential inputs.Surely this is wrong. It is the party which has to be answerable to the people, and not the people who are hostage to the party Perhaps we are too concerned with past Injustices to take much cognizance of the present or the future, even though the *1 tuation demand* that we bury our hatchets and learn to work together

The state of affairs in the country as a whole also reminds one of the situation in most campuses and educational Institutions of the country. and which has been going on for quite some time. Differ ent factions engage in gun battles. totally alienated from the wider constituency, the tearh-ers and students. What is .at stake is their own glory and betterment not the betterment of the institutions, or the achievement of social good. This is of course generally perceived and reflected in common parlance I have heard Dhaka University being referred to as a "sector", ie a battleground for factional poli-Ucs.

Let me end by saying that my purpose in writing this ar tide is not to generally condemn everybody an everything. It stems from a deep-seated belief that the present state of affairs should be checked, not only to resolve the present crisis, but also to shape the future course of events. Political parties have to once more think of representing the people and being accountable to the people. The true role of politicians is to understand the social good, not simply the good of their membership. This is rooted in an understanding of not Just "pplitics". meaning out-manouvering one s rivals, but an understanding of the socioeconomic situa tlon of the country and what is good for the future of this country and once again, the people

The writer is an Associate Professor tn the Department of Economics. Dhaka University