& 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

Now let’s start the election campaign

Here we are: two years on. Right now, let us look to the future. AL and BNP have got their wish: their leaders have been released. Now, let's have that election. It is long over-due. There are serious decisions that need to be made to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But only an elected government has the mandate to make these decisions and deliver these changes.
EVER since Sheikh Hasina was freed on medical parole three months ago, the country has been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Just as Hasina's original incarceration two months ahead of Khaleda Zia seemed one-sided until her counterpart was also similarly detained, so it was when Hasina was released.
The government, by all accounts, has been quietly prepared for Khaleda to be released on bail for quite some time now. The sticking point was always the prior release of her son, but Khaleda stuck to her guns, and got her way.
Awami Leaguers (and perhaps others as well) will argue that it is unfair for the two leaders to be considered in the same light, given the wide disparity in the misrule and abuse of power that they presided over when prime minister, and they may have a point.
But, regardless of the merits of this argument, and it is one with which I have a certain amount of sympathy, the realpolitik of the situation seemed to suggest that, at this stage in the proceedings, that the government may have had little choice but to treat the two former prime ministers the same.
The imperative was always elections. For this government, there could be no back-tracking from its commitment to hold national elections in December. The public had patiently sat through an extended period of non-democratic rule under a state of emergency only because i t was hoping for free and fair elections at the end of the process. l\vo years was absolutely the limit of the public's patience.
Ultimately, both BNP and AL are indispensable to elections. Elections without one or other of the two parties would run the risk of lacking credibility in the public eye and would likely not have provided the foundation needed for functional politics in the future. Thus, the government was, in the final analysis, obligated to do pretty much whatever was necessary to bring the parties to the table.
It would have been better if the elections had not been held hostage to the parties' preferred legal outcomes with respect to the cases agairtst their leaders. But if that was the price of bringing
them to the table, then it is not immediately apparent to me what serious alternatives the government had at its disposal. If the government folded, it is because it knew that it was only holding a pair of twos.
Now that both the AI. and the BNP have got what they want, let us move on to the long-awaited elections. The last thing we need now is to revert to unproductive histrionics as to the intricacies of party registration. The release of the party leaders as a precondition for contesting elections is something that most Bangladeshi can probably sympathise with, but tendentious nitpicking over the minutiae of the RPO is a lot less likely to meet with public support.
Looking back over the last two years, it seems apparent that the government would have been better served to have held elections within the 90 days mandated by the constitution instead of embarking on its more ambitious program for remaking the polity.
The question is whether the reforms that have been put in place and the new electoral roll are worth the damage done by what can only be viewed as the
failure of the anti-corruption drive, the fact that the country has essentially trod water for the past two years, and the bitterness that has been engendered
Much depends, first, on to what extent the institutional reforms that have been put in place are continued under a democratic government, second, whether there is any long-term improvement in the governance and political culture of the country, and, third, whether the shock of 1/11 and the last two years will end the culture of corruption.
The danger, of course, is that the reforms will be junked, that we will revert to the dysfunctional politics of the past, and that corruption, far from being brought under control, will become even more institutionalised due to the demonstrated inability of the government to sustainably bring the corrupt to book.
But that is a chance that as a country we will have to take. The voters have shown, if the city council elections are any guide, that the two big parties are the ones that have their allegiance.
Now, I think it would be a mistake for the AL and BNP to take continued voter loyalty as any kind of a sign of unquestioning devotion. The first-past-the-post system ensures that many people will hold their nose and voter for the lesser of two evils to ensure that the party they dislike most will not come to power.
In addition, many people are hesitant to oppose AL and BNP at this moment in time because they see the parties as vanguards of the democracy we all wish to protect. The voters remain cautious and do not want to pave the way for any non democratic alternative, and to this extent, they see the existing parties as the safest game In town
Thus, once that spectre of non-democratic government is removed, and hopefully it will be banished by the coming elections, and voters need not be concerned that they are unwittingly digging democracy's grave, they may well be in the mood for some change.
My guess is that neither party is much in the mood for change. Indeed, the opposite: they feel vindicated. Perhaps the excesses, missteps, and rule of law and due process violations of the past two years have even managed to convince them that they are innocent victims of a witch-hunt to discredit them.
But the party that promises to deliver more credible change going forward is the one that will win the trust of the voters.
For the BNP, this might mean the voluntary retirement of Tarique Rahman from the political scene together with the cronies who surrounded him and made a mockery of the BNP's last tenure in office. This would enhance the credibility of the party going forward and create
impetus for a new generation of leadership to join the ranks and for far-reaching reforms to be instituted.
There is plenty of meat on the reform bone for the AL as well. If it can signal credibly to the voters that it really means business and that it has turned the corner into a new era of openness, internal democracy, and accountability, there is no question in my mind that the party will be rewarded at the polls.
The worst-case scenario is if the parties refuse to reform themselves, or indeed, continue worse than before. This is, regrettably, 4 perhaps the most likely scenario But the two parties shouldn't think that, if that is the case, that the people will not rally behind the standard of the party that offers the most comprehensive and credible vision of change and progress.
Here we are: two years on. Right now. let us look to the future. AL and BNP have got their wish: their leaders have been released. Now, let’s have that election. It is long over-due. There is much work to be done that only an elected government can do.
There are many more reforms that we need to consider, from repeal of Article 70 of the constitution to proportional representation to prime ministerial term limits, that might make our democracy more functional. There is policy to formulate. There are serious decisions that need to be made to meet the challenges of the 21 st century. But only an elected government has the mandate to make these deci- • sions and deliver these changes.
Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor The Daily Star