& 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

Is wishing for positive politics a goose chase?

Z. A. Khan
Many elderly citizens in Bangladesh lament that they are unlikely to see "politics for prosperity of the country" during their lifetime. Indeed, many of us feel that Bangladesh, since our bloody war for independence 39 years back, is still experimenting with the format of politics that suits the nation. The liberation war veterans are passing away, with their wishes unfulfilled, and a new era is yet to be born.***
MANY elderly citizens in Bangladesh lament that they are unlikely to see "politics for prosperity of the country" during their lifetime. Indeed, many of us feel that Bangladesh, since our bloody war for independence 39 years back, is still experimenting with the format of politics that suits the nation. The liberation war veterans are passing away, with their wishes unfulfilled, and a new era is yet to beborn.
In the interregnum, a variety of symptoms are appearing that do not promise to accommodate the challenging dynamics of change and the unneeded sensitivities that may trigger violence. Can we preside over continuance of this situation? Does not posterity expect us to find ways that can midwife a rebirth of the commitment that inspired us to fight hand in gloves for our independence, regardless of political differences?
The bumpy road of politics that we have treaded so far has failed to direct us to the destination. The nation inherited a war ravaged economy and fractured political institutions due to mismanagement and manipulations of some of the then political bigwigs who did not pur-
sue the cause of independence according to the people's wish. In the depth of this misty situation, there was the misguided motivation of personal greed, ethnical misunderstanding and political jealousy.
What we lack in our pursuit of democracy and development is unity in diversity in the political dispensation. We have witnessed that major political e parties opposed each other even on vital I national issues. This notion has become more prevalent in recent years, causing ambivalence about the consequences of the negative approach. Right now, our nation is in quest of a model of political initiative best suited for us, backed by accentuated necessity of accommodation. It is time that the political leadership abandon their attitude of opposing everything that the opposite number puts up.
One does understand that the suspicion that has accumulated over the years cannot be supplanted by hastily taken initiatives for concord to enable good politics to return to centre stage. Our people today are willing to challenge the political wind and often question the probity of those in power. This is fraught with potential danger of driving a wedge
between the opposing political leadership, which may blockade intercommunication.
Experience reveals that our people have a talent for doing the unexpected, and may force a rapprochement on the leadership to forge an alliance based on necessity and shared values. An array of reckless disputations has immersed our nation into the current political imbroglio.
The leadership of the major parties go haywire when voted to power, and take decisions on national issues without discussion with the opposition as they have the carapace of power around them to make them impregnable against public outbursts. This has shrouded the
possibility of taking each other in confidence while delving into vital national issues.
It is not difficult to fathom that the current conflict between the political parties is tinged with personal dislike of one top leader for the other, and vice-versa. This has prompted the top leaders to espouse "yesmanship" even by cajoling, when so needed to consolidate their hold on national politics by wooing public support.
In the whole process the masses have been alienated, political institutions have been desecrated to the extent that they have become private organisations run on individual whims, and the leaders hardly feel obliged to be transparent and
accountable. Amendments to the party constitutions have been done to suit the leaders' design without consultation with the party leaders.
The recent party conventions of the major political parties have legitimised the top leaders' absolute authority to act at will, forgetting the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This has not only weakened the functioning of democratic institutions, but has also made statecraft critically vulnerable to power games and to the use of power for power. The nation has waited for long to see that politics improves to consolidate good governance.
There was a brief tremor in the recent past to tell us about the true status of our democracy and the dwindling edifice of the leadership. Although the brief intervention failed utterly to focus on a minimum programme to "right the wrong," it has at least made us aware of our lacking.
The need of the hour is to tide over the self-created barriers to liberate democracy, which seems to be like a riddle wrapped in an enigma. In our brief national history we have witnessed the chequered rise and violent fall of political leadership for pursuing absolute power, both in the dispensation of state responsibilities and within the party. This provoked internal party feuds and acrimonious political opposition.
This process has catapulted a few less known leaders to prominence, who become sycophants to consolidate their hold on the new found political affluence by doing anything to convince their top leaders that there is none in the party or in the country more capable than the leader to run the party or to govern the country. They deployed all the tactics of ruse and deceit to prevail upon their leaders that they (leaders) being superior must always be the holders of powers.
Thus, the golden rule of democracy, which is freedom of choice and justice, could not endure the test of time. Flagrant rejection of patience and tolerance, the two pillars of sustainable democracy, became rampant. The top leaders have made themselves incommunicado, and the party divide has become wider.
The mandarins of the parties gave in to the currency of the time, which is sycophancy, and indulged in all kinds of activities that gladdened their leaders. Jealousy tiptoed into the attitudes of the top leaders about their opposite numbers who, taking leave of their senses, started castigating the opponents as inefficient, anti-people and unpopular. So both the parties oppose each other's decisions, which leads to confrontational politics.
The gnawing dilemma prevailing now is that, while some are keen to take a privileged look into the future others are battling to survive because of the sheer inertia of the system that they have craftily mapped. This has forced backtracking of reform efforts that could have dispatched confrontational politics to its murky backyard to rot unnoticed. Many people committed to championing the cause of the deprived and underprivileged are taking voluntary exit, appreciating that no measure of reform is possible in current political environment.
It is time to stop pursuing the blame game without suggesting an antidote. We should not forget that the rhetoric of throwing blame on others brings diminishing returns. We must unremittingly resolve to call spade a spade and be prepared to face any calamity that may follow.
ZA Khan is a former Director General of Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies.