& 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

STRAIGHT LINE

Political violence and governance

Muhammad Nurul Huda
FOR the governance scenario to register substantial improvements and thus to secure the foundations of democracy in our volatile polity, the phenomenon of violence or specifically, the spectre of political violence needs to be studied in a serious manner. Its urgency would be felt in the coming months as the nation prepares for the election with a view to returning to democratic governance. Without fear of contradiction it can be said that an overall assessment of the subject of contemporary political violence in Bangladeshi society and authoritarian response thereof has been neglected.
There is no denying that every civilian death linked to conflict amounts to a violation of human rights. Such risks are heavily weighted against people living in poorest countries like ours. There is, undoubtedly, a pressing need for safety from chronic threats and protection from sudden disruptions in the patterns of daily life. Political violence undermines human security in several dimensions because there is a strong association between serious violence and low human develop-
ment. Therefore, prevention of such violence must be at the centre of planning for poverty reduction.
It would be topical to observe that violence and violent outcomes are more likely in societies marked by deep polarization, weak institutions and chronic poverty. We cannot win in the campaign against violence
extended and strengthened. Therefore, security strategy must not make the mistake of adopting an underdeveloped human security response. Bangladesh scenario lends credence to such apprehensions.
In Bangladesh serious political violence has occurred when the underprivileged were materially and socially controlled or excluded by the government and the market. Such victims have often been economically marginalized. Violence has been mostly perpetrated on those in the lowest rungs of the social order. In such circumstances, physical violence has manifested itself as the weapon of the oppressed against the authority.
The quality of violence characterizing Bangladeshi society at all
levels today has an irrcducibly political context. Overt and visible violence has been coexisting with invisible violence that in effect destroys the identity of human beings. Visible violence being situational can be dealt by law and order solutions through political intervention.
In Bangladesh today, we are witnessing the politics of violence, which in practical terms means resorting to physical violence to promote a political objective. We also observe violence of politics which denotes violence built into the institutional structure of politics. Although our major political parties would deny the existence of violence of politics the people see violence in all politics. The events necessitating 1/11 of 2007 lend credence to the premonition of our citizens.
It has been our unfortunate experience to see the state-sponsored development programs becoming tools of oppression in the hands of ruling political elite. In addition, electoral politics pursued by the political parties often lead to violence and persistence of violence against the weak.
Interestingly enough, one has to
look into the relationship between violence and power. Though violence in society is perceived as a breach of law, often the law itself becomes equally violent and has an anaesthetizing impact on account of systematic ruthlessness that is sanctioned officially. One has to remember that the rule of law, apparently a civilizing factor, has led to the deployment of violence for purposes of governance. There is, therefore, a need to check the indiscriminate use of power and violence.
We in Bangladesh need serious policy discussions of the phenomenon of violence, though there has been plenty of scattered discussion in the media. One must not be under the mistaken impression that violence is a mere by-product of under development, which will disappear as development takes place. We would do well to remember that violence has serious ramifications for families, children and communities. The lives of nonpartisan and non-combatant people are affected by being caught between two opposing parties, by the security operations, summary justice, the curbs on individual freedom and the lack of
trust among people living through violence.
There is a need to appreciate that several factors aggravate , violence. Such factors include the failure of multi-party representative democracy, poor governance, emergence of fundamental ideologies, dispersal of unauthorized firearms, development-induced displacement, drugs trafficking, and money laundering and associated phenomena. In addition, we have to recognize that criminal behaviour is becoming more apparent than the obvious rise in the number of law-enforcers and that young people including even females are increasingly taking to violent criminal acts. There is also the threat of the use of arms becoming more common and the increasing tendency to resort to violence.
The much discussed phenomena of terrorism may be viewed as the Illegal use of violence for inflicting punishment or taking revenge or influencing behavioural change. The roots of political terrorism require careful analysis. The skeptics would say that in defining terrorism there is a bias against people and in favour of
governments. Of late, religious zealotry has been a source of terror. Often, there is an expression of anger and a sense of betrayal. Underlying some violent actions are government policies that have failed to address the democratic concerns of the citizens. There is, thus a need, to ensure that State agencies do not go beyond the legal boundaries.
If there is any serious attempt by caring Bangladeshis to understand the incidences of the malfunctioning of our polity by placing them in the historical, sociological and political context then that may turn out to be an agonizing experience. One suspicion could be whether our concern for democracy amounted to merely a false consciousness or worse, was it a crude legitimization of the so-called politically driven conflict. Should we look for the roots of the problem in the phenomena of social exclusion, economic marginalization, contests for power and other contingent factors?
A question that should bother right-thinking citizens is as to where do the State fit into a scenario as apprehended above? Have widespread abnormalities surfaced during the stocktaking process because we did not quite realize that the State could not satisfactorily deliver the required services including security to its citizens? If this is perceived to be a failure then what are the circumstances in which such a failure has occurred? One could also wonder if the State through the government machinery was a participant rather than a neutral
umpire in situations of conflict.
Although politics, without doubt, is an edifying activity, not many in Bangladesh would talk reverentially about politicians. Some would even go to the extent of depicting our politicians as active participants in the creation of disorder. Their malevolence has been criticized as planned and diabolically purposeful.
In Bangladesh, unfortunately, we have witnessed violence that has been purposive. In our polity we have seen political motivations ranging from local turf wars to more ugly and vulgar race for quick riches; from teaching a rival group a 'lesson' to polarizing communities into voting blocs.
Politics did enter into a situation in which hired thugs who perpetrated violence were assured of protection from prosecution. Very few felt ashamed as politics in our parlance acquired a pejorative connotation by the fact of its mani -fest association with conflict and violence. The civil society has been undermined by the stimulation of politics based on division and acrimony.
Cynical observers of our social scene are of the distressing view that there is a functional utility of violence for politicians. Such opinions point an accusing finger towards the suspected State complicity in the perpetration of organized acts of violence and the inordinate delays in securing justice for the victims. This delay is alarming as it sends a clear message to potential delinquents that no harm will come to them in the event of repeat performances of criminal activities.
In Bangladesh we need to seriously acknowledge the significance of authoritative approval or condoning of violence because such action is construed as social approval. The so-called political circumstances have often obstructed accountability of the culpable individuals. There Is good reason to doubt that considerable number of officials abnegated their responsibility to protect all citizens regardless of their identity.
The politicians have to realize that violent incidents and assassinations of political personalities in particular have made an adverse impact on all segments of the state and the outside world has taken a note of that. We cannot afford to have any further delay in the proper investigation of the relevant cases because the nation must come out of the saturated pool of pathetic inaction into a pragmatic realization that political disputes must be settled in a civilized manner and violence cannot be a way of life in a democratic polity.
In respect of fighting violence, there is no visible earnestness at the heart of the Bangladeshi political system. Countering violence now should be the conjoint responsibility of the State, the civil society and the market, entailing a shift in analysis from the State to the society as a whole. In ensuring the security of the state, it must not exceed the limits of legitimacy and resort to unacceptable levels of violence. The provider should not be a predator.
Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.
***Violent incidents and assassinations of political personalities in particular have made an adverse impact on all segments of the state and the outside world has taken a note of that. We cannot afford to have any further delay in the proper investigation of the relevant cases because the nation must come out of the saturated pool of pathetic inaction into a pragmatic realization that political disputes must be settled in a civilized manner and violence cannot be a way of life in a democratic polity.***