& 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

Under one banner

Mahbub Kamal
***Although a certain amount of adversity is Necessary and desirable in a democracy, but the critical tension level between cooperation and competition has been broken down much too often in favour of the latter in Bangladesh. It is time to reverse the pendulum a little to the other side to make the system functional.***
AS the country moves towards another transition, the need for a national consensus government has become all the more important. The idea of a national government has been there in the political domain since the country > liberation.
During the Liberation War. a national consultative committee was formed headed by Maulana Bhashani and included all major political parties that did not have representation in parliament but had a significant following in the country. A national government could not be formed for obvious reasons, the war was being fought partly to legitimise the mandate of the 1970 elections that the Pakistan government had subverted. Any non-parliamentary involvement in the government directly would have made the cause less appealing and to that extent less legitimate in public perception.
But very soon after independence, most opposition political parties including the NAP (Bhashani) demanded a national government to rebuild the country. The newly formed JSD went a step further a wanted a "revolu-
tionary" government. The ruling Awami League felt that such a deviation would undermine their moral right and went for a quick election in 1973. This, however, did not resolve the myriad problems that had emerged through the Liberation War.
The issue of a national government came up again after the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1991. But this time, too, the predominant party, BNP refused to accommodate others, although it fell short of an absolute majority and had to depend on Jamaat-e-Islami to gain a majority to form a government. However, BNP ignored its lack of an absolute majority in parliament and paid the price when the other political parties banded together against it. In the general elections of 2001, BNP tried to remedy its mistakes of the past by forming an alliance of four parties.
The Awami League when it formed a government in 1996 called for a government of national consensus but this was rejected by the main opposition BNP. Nevertheless, the BNP agreed to have national consensus on important national issues. Had AL accepted the offer it may have been a beginning, but then
earlier experience was not so good either.
In the early 1990s the BNP government had initiated several national dialogues on major national issues like student politics but it did not have any output. Part of the problem was that the representatives at the roundtables did not include the two major decision makers of the party.
Political parties have a long tradition of banding together when in the opposition, but they tend to split up over the spoils, once in power. In the early 1960s the Combined Opposition Parties (COP) was a significant force that launched a vigorous campaign to challenge Ayub Khan and promote Ms. Fatima Jinnah as the presidential candidate. Although, Ms. Jinnah did not win the polls, as it was widely believed to be rigged, but the campaign left an indelible imprint on the psyche of the nation. In 1968, the political parties, once again formed DAC, the Democratic Action Committee, to oust Ayub and restore democracy. The DAC was successful in attaining its objectives. But after the ouster of Ayub it also fell apart.
In post-liberation Bangladesh there were some coalitions, too.
In 1975 when the Awami League formed the one-party state it absorbed NAP (Muzaffar) and the CPB. Later when Zia wanted a political base, he formed a united front of political parties ranging from the left to right. It included the Muslim League and the NAP(B). Later the "nationalist front" as it was called became the Bangladesh Nationalist Party or BNP for short.
After the restoration of parliamentary democracy in the 1990s, all governments were either coalitions or quasicoalitions. Gradually, the country was moving towards greater and bigger coalitions. The fact was dawning on the party leaderships that, however large their following, they alone were not in a position to rule the country peacefully.
By the winter of 2007 when general elections were scheduled to be held, it had becoming increasingly clear that even grand coalitions were no solution to the perennial problems of Bangladesh politics. The nation needed some kind of power sharing arrangement among the major players. It was a refusal to accept the ground realities that forced a suspension of the scheduled polls.
An unprincipled alliance is the last thing one wants to see, as it will only deprive people of their choices. But a principled coalition of forces seems to be the only way out of the intensely competitive and increasingly confronta-
tional politics of Bangladesh. The major stakeholders must be willing to share and give what is due to their adversaries, otherwise, there will be no peace in Bangladesh.
There is a growing consensus that parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh is not working as hoped. The opposition, whether it is AL or BNP, boycotts parliament and takes to the street, often calling for hartals and making the entire country bleed. This is not expected from a responsible opposition. The cost to the economy is incalculable.
But the opposition has its arguments, too. They claim that the party-in-power is persecuting them. And it is true. Opposition leaders and workers are harassed and thrown into jail. Some, like Ahsanuliah Master and Shah A. M. S. Kibria, even get killed. Then there is the endless politicisation, where only party followers get jobs, strategic postings and business opportunities.
This relation must give way to more constructive ways of promoting one's cause. Evidently, Bangladeshi politicians have not known how to do it. The tactics that they are familiar with are disruptive and in no way congruent with democracy, as it is known elsewhere in the world. Working together for a reasonable period of time may inculcate some of the behavioral patterns that allow respect for opponents and peaceful pursuits of political goals.
Can't we all get along?
Recently, national consensus or national governments have been formed in Nepal and Pakistan during peacetime to oversee the country's transition to democracy. Both countries have formed broad coalitions involving almost all political parties represented in parliament to oversee the transition.
In both cases, the largest parties had a choice of forming weak coalitions with smaller parties but it was thought wiser to go for a broader coalition implying the greatest possible political support for the political transformation. Although it is too early to say
whether the experiment in these countries will succeed, but the fact remains that it has been appreciated by all, both locally and internationally.
The repeated disruption of the democratic process in Bangladesh also calls for some kind of cooperation between the principal actors. The informal networks that work so well while in the opposition need to be formalised and given a place in the power structure.
Most importantly, sitting on the same side of the table would be a major role reversed that may help the disparate parties think
along similar lines. So far, they have always been sitting across the table, making the relationship adversarial.
Although a certain amount of adversity is necessary and desirable in a democracy, but the critical tension level between cooperation and competition has been broken down much too often in favour of the latter in Bangladesh. It is time to reverse the pendulum a little to the other side to make the system functional.
Mahbub Kamal is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.