& 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

BOTTOM LINE

Why Begum Khaleda and Sheikh Hasina should talk

Harun ur Rashid
***Given the confrontation between the two major parties since 1991, democratic norms and traditions totally disappeared from ethical standards of most of politicians. Democracy in the country was dominated by tyrannical rule of the majority and a recalcitrant minority. The conduct of both parties had alienated an overwhelming majority of common people, and when 1/11 came there was a relief in the country.***
A lot of articles have appeared in the newspapers recently on the proposed face- to-face dialogue between the, two former prime ministers. Some writers and politicians doubt whether any fruitful outcome would emanate from their talks.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq first raised the matter, expecting that a new dawn could rise in restoring healthy political environment in the country if the two national leaders talked to each other.
This is a commendable initiative, coming from an eminent barrister who, as a citizen of the country, has the right to propose such a meeting. Furthermore, his standing is greater than other people's because he represented both the leaders before the courts at a difficult time in their personal lives.
The leaders will not talk about their personal matters, or about removing their dislike for each other, but about promoting representative democracy in the country. There is a saying that the interests of a political party come before self-interest, and the interests of the country come before the interests of a political party.
Briefly, politics Ln the country since 1991 was characterised by and large by the following unsavourypractices:
• The mutual dislike for each other continued unabated between Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. They did not speak to each other for years. As a result, confrontational politics prevailed.
• If one lady won the election and ran the government, the other lady and her party MPs boycotted the parliament on allegation of the election being rigged and non-cooperation in the parliament by the ruling party. The issues were raised on the streets and violence would erupt among the supporters of rival parties.
• The prime minister became an authoritarian leader because of dynastic reasons. One is the wife of a slain president and the other lady is the daughter of assassinated president and founder of the nation. Hardly any cabinet minister or MP had the courage to express different views on the prime minister's decisions.
• Politics became a big commercial investment because if one could become an MP, it was a gateway for him/her to make
money by being corrupt and abusing power and privilege. If MPs and ministers became corrupt, bureaucrats were not far behind them.
Suspected corrupt ministers and MPs were never dismissed or put on trial, and corrupt individuals and musclemen moved freely under the patronage of influential politicians. Criminalisation of politics became a routine affair. A section of ministers and MPs had allegedly pampered criminal elements to make money by extortion as long as they could bring enough votes for politicians during the elections.
State institutions became weak, and it is alleged that successive governments appointed their own people in the state institutions. In the perception of the public, there was almost a complete breakdown of integrity of some of the state institutions. Bureaucracy became politicised, and those who "did not go with the flow" were marginalised.
Given the confrontation between the two major parties since 1991, democratic norms and traditions totally disappeared from ethical standards of most of politicians.
Democracy in the country was dominated by tyrannical rule of the majority and a recalcitrant minority. The conduct of both parties had alienated an over-nvhelrning: majority:of common people, and when 1/11 came there was a relief in the country.
But everyone realises that the caretaker government has been a stop-gap one and that an elected government has to run the country, and, therefore, politicians have an important role to play in restoring representative democracy in the country.
What should they talk about?
It is assumed that the two leaders must have gone through a process of self-analysis and introspection when they were in prison. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living.
The leaders must have taken stock of the past deeds of their parties' stalwarts and realised that there must be a new beginning in politics, which will not be influenced by money, muscle and corrupt elements.
Broadly, they need to talk about the following:
• Acceptance of the outcome of a fair election with grace.
Please, break the ice.
• Role of rilling party and opposition in parliament.
• No boycott of the sessions of parliament.
• Political issues not to be settled on the streets.
• Some guidelines for conduct of supporters duringhartal.
• Revision of the Constitution.
A few words about revision of the Constitution
The 1972 Bangladesh Constution provides for representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to rule of law (not merely rule by law) that places constraints on the government leaders on the extent to which the will of majority can be exercised against the rights of minority parties.
37 years of governance have demonstrated the pitfalls, and misinterpretation, of the provisions of the Constitution. Some of the amended provisions (such as Article 70) tend to be totally against the democratic norms of
the Consitution, and they need to be deleted.
What is imperative is that provisions of the Constitution must be made explicity clear, with checks and balances on the separation of powers among the organs of the state -executive, legislative and judiciary. There exists an imbalance between the powers of the president and those of the prime minister, which needs to be rectified.
It does not matter whether their parties or members of civil society initiate the process of talks, if the two former prime ministers can arrive at a consensus on the issues mentioned above it will augur well for the country.
Politics is the art of the possible, as Bismarck said. Both the prime ministers have served the people, and it is always the politicians in all countries who provide service to the community. Politics is the highest call of service to people.