**As it looks now, we are going into the New Year with gathering cloud in the political sky indicating great likelihood of severe storm. The fact that we cannot afford it — that it is suicidal — does not appear to affect either the thought or the actions of our political leaders.

The year has ended with political war drums beating loud. Unlike real life wars, the elements of surprise in this case has been dispensed with giving us time and date when the war is likely to begin — after Ramadan. That is when the real action is set to begin regardless of how the people feel or what they want. War has been declared and so the political workers must fight and peo-Ele must suffer. Who cares if we ave not been asked?

With the most recent developments In Jatiya Party (JP) of former President Ershad and his determined announcement of becoming a part of the real opposition, our politics can be said to have come a full circle in the last decade. We started with AL, BNP. Jamaat and all the left parties coalescing together against JP. After the fall of JP it was the grouping of AL. Jamaat, the left parties and JP that fought against the government of BNP. Now that AL is in power the new polarisation is of BNP, Jamaat and JP against the government of AL. The left parties are yet to show where they stand. They are definitely not enamoured by the way the AL has governed so far but may not be ready to abandon it yet. especially if the AL gives them some importance. As if in a game, each major party appears to get a chance to form the government (with the exception of Jamaat) while others by turn gang up against it to pull it down. The sad part is that the country’s life is not a game and people's lives are not mere playthings.

Ine lesson of '98 appears to be that our leading political parties have no principles, no ideology, no set policy and no goal except ONE: Unite against the ruling party, which ever that may be, and do whatever is necessary to harass it, incapacitate it and finally topple it. There is no rule of the game except that ■we' must win and the 'other' must lose, and everything else must be made subservient to this ONE GOAL.

The tragedy of our recent Elitics appears to be the col-pse of our anti-autocracy coalition following Ershad's defeat in the hands of a people united against nine years of misrule, nepotism, corruption, debauchery and lies. With the

fall of autocracy, and the smell of political power in the air, the grand coalition that brought Ershad to his knees disappeared and all our political parties went their separate ways. This by itself may not have been bad if the competition between our two leading parties — AL and BNP — remained within • some broad principles. But it did not. Everything appeared to be justified to attain one’s own goal, which was simply to capture political power. For this, shaking hands with the ‘Devil' was not considered unjustified.

Our anti-Ershad democratic coalition was a grand achievement. It was the majesty of ’People Power’ in display once again. The quasi-military dictatorship was humbled by the bare-footed soldiers of democracy. And look what magnificent rewards it brought to the nation — parliamentary form of government. free and fair elections, sovereign parliament and a free media. We looked set to move forward to build Bangladesh in the path of democracy.

The first betrayal of the grand anti-autocracy coalition took place when the 19-point programme of the Three Alliances was abandoned in the 1991 election by the major parties, especially by the BNP after it formed the first post-Ershad government. The 19-point programme was an agenda for action that every Alliance partner pledged to implement in the post-Ershad era. It was this programme that united the nation and galvanised a passive people into an active civic coalition that triggered the mass struggle forcing Ershad into handing over power. It was a democratic agenda whose implementation would have not only taken the nation forward but kept alive the unity against autocracy that was abandoned so quickly and tragically.

What followed after democracy was restored in ’91. and how the Awami League, taken by surprise by its defeat in the election that followed, allied itself with JP and Jamaat to make the new government’s life miserable is known to all.

In the post-’91 politics the ills of the autocratic era took a back seat to the attention given by the newly formed -BNP government on the 'evils' of the post-liberation government of

Awami League. As the battle between BNP and AL became frontal and total everything else became secondary, even the fact that they have a common enemy, which is autocracy of the previous nine years.

It was widely felt that Awami League’s return to power after long 21 years in the wilderness would usher in some new and positive elements in the politics of Bangladesh. To some degree it did. To the extent that the memories of Liberation War again found centre stage in our national discourse, our Muktijoddhas received

increased attention and our founding principles like secularism found state support, the AL appeared to fulfil the nation’s aspiration. But this discourse on the liberation war was fatally flawed by its over concentration on

Bangabandhu. The deification of our supreme national leader only helped to create an unhealthy backlash, the future consequences of which may be quite unfortunate. Attention on secularism was compromised through unnecessary concessions to reactionary symbols. The Water Treaty and the Peace Accord in the Chittagong Hill Tracts are examples of the fresh and bold approaches for which the AL government must be given credit. Legislative initiatives like those on the local government. women representation at the Union Parishad level, moves to set up a Human Rights Commission, etc. were efforts in the right direction. Sheikh Hasina also set up some new examples of parliamentary practice by attending most of its debates and introducing a PM's question hour which permitted the MPs to subject the Leader of the House to some direct questions. This agaia was not allowed its full play due to selection of questioners. AL government appeared to start well on the issue of granting autonomy to the state controlled media by setting up a broadcasting commission. But no sooner was the report finished it appeared to reverse its position and went on to use the state media for blatant propaganda as before.

Where however the AL government appears to have made the same blunder as the BNP. is in its treatment of the opposi-

tion. When BNP won in '91 it got almost the same percentage of popular vote as the AL — 30 per cent plus. In fact the AL share was higher by a fraction. Yet throughout its tenure BNP ignored this fact and treated AL as a spent force not to be taken seriously. AL's attitude towards BNP was even worse. Its standard reference to BNP was Vote Dacoit' (Party that stole votes) and its treatment to it was always confrontational. AL can claim that it invited all parties, including the BNP. to join its 'Oikamatter Sarkar'

(Government of National Consensus) but except for propaganda value it did not have any merit. It was more a call to join the government as junior coalition partner, rather than be a part of a government of consensus. As this writer had argued then, that if the offer of a consensus government was genuine, the ruling party could seriously consult the opposition members in all policy matters before formulating them and thus make them a part of the governance process without formally making the BNP a part of the government.

There is ample evidence to justify BNP's claim that AL government has used the police to harass its workers in the district. thana and village levels. Widespread filing of court cases reduced the law enforcement process into a partisan weapon. AL's most unethical use of the parliamentary process was to allure two BNP MPs with ministerial posts. When, to every one’s surprise the Speaker declared that this did not constitute ’floor-crossing’ which would result in the loss of membership in the Parliament. BNP lost whatever faith it had in the neutrality of the Speaker. From then on it became even less interested in the affairs of the -House than it previously was.

The purpose of this brief recount of history is to remind readers how we defeated autocracy and the usurpers of people's power on the one hand and then how we ourselves created conditions for its return to public life. We fight each other, denigrate each other, make the public lose confidence and faith in each other, and finally we ourselves invite the previously discredited autocratic force into

our fold and legitimise it by making it a part of our camp. Just think. Both BNP and AL fought together for long nine years to defeat Ershad’s JP. But no sooner BNP took power after '91 elections, AL allowed JP to form a part of its alliance against BNP. Not only that. AL made JP a partner in its government. Now. BNP is inviting JP to its camp to fight the AL. Politics make strange bedfellows. but ours seem to know no limit.

So the year ends with a new polarisation in our politics which places the AL on one side and BNP. Jamaat and JP on the other. If the left parties now abandon AL then the former’s isolation will be complete.

If politics, which has always been confrontational, comes down to the street level as has been promised by BNP and others. then we are likely to go. once again, into a cycle of hartals and violence. If that happens. then once again our development agenda — industrial production, education, healthcare, child care, agricultural output, etc. — will all be overtaken by violent politics. This will further reduce our chances of attaining 7-8 per cent growth which is a must if we are to make any dent in our poverty situation. That appears to be the likeliest scenario at the moment.

As it looks now. we are going into the New Year with gathering cloud in the political sky indicating great likelihood of severe storm. The fact that we cannot afford it — that it is suicidal — does not appear to affect either the thought or the actions of our political leaders. So it appears that our only option is to brace ourselves for troubled times. The fact that our people have just emerged from the biggest calamity this century has nad no impact on the decisions of our political parties. They are doing exactly as they wanted and decided to do. as part of their own strategy-

With this rather pessimistic political outlook for the New Year, we can only say how much more our poor and hungry people will have to suffer before our politicians decide that they have had enough, and allow the people some respite.