& 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

Enough is enough

Anam A. Choudhury
***Politics, as everyone knows, is the art of compromise but in Bangladesh political compromise is a very rare commodity. A breakthrough on the issue of the caretaker system, from two politicians with such different outlooks and instincts, is a forlorn hope. Their relationship has never been a natural one.***
HERE'S an unsolvable quandary — why do most politicians view the world through the eyes of others when in power, but begin to see with their own wonderful eyes as soon as they are driven out of it?
Governments can no longer dictate what people should see and hear about the country. The widespread use of Facebook, Twitter, SMS and other electronic tools is greatly enhancing a citizen's ability to engage with multiple viewpoints. How can any government realistically limit such engagement?
The Supreme Court has declared the caretaker government system illegal, and the Awami League government is trying to seize this moment to climb out of a hole they themselves dug. However, the moral majority in this country believe in judicial restraint, or the view that the highest courts should think twice before striking down the laws. Political change should come not from judges but from the parliament, in accordance to the wishes of the people.
We expect our senior judges to embrace the vision of liberal judicial restraint and not to overreach with a judicial approach that may ignore the will of the people. Some such rulings may trigger negative debate in society and damage the uncontroversial features of our judiciary. Nowadays, in the Western democracies, Judges hesitate to impose judicial solutions on political issues; instead they let due process work itself out politically to ensure political cohesion.
Politics, as everyone knows, is the art of compromise but in Bangladesh political compromise is a very rare commodity. A breakthrough on the issue of the caretaker system, from two politicians with such different outlooks and instincts, is a forlorn hope. Their relationship has never been a natural one.
The nation is crying out for an inspirational leader. After all, an inspirational leader can bring all the people together and help the nation
heal from the deep fissions caused by so many years of division. People are yearning to see an incumbent win, an election without credible cries of foul, to ensure consistency and coherent policy planning and its subsequent implementation.
In a parliamentary form of democracy, people expect a ruling party leader to behave more like a consensus seeking bridge builder and less like a president. In our centralised political structure, MPs often appear bystanders to the shifts and trends that define our politics. Making the government run brilliantly is the key to build support for the incumbent, but this government's obsession with irrelevant issues is akin to rearranging the deck chairs of a sinking ship.
The way Bangladesh's voting sys-
tem works, tiny changes in the popular vote could make huge differences to how many seats each party gets. We cannot judge the parties on the basis of their policies and their current leaders. Neither of our major parties can think of any change in their leadership or policies; as in Bangladesh change is always met with fear and suspicion.
Interestingly, many people mistakenly believe that a particular leader is indispensable if they wish to unite the party and win the election. They fail to understand that the graveyards of this world are littered with so many indispensable leaders. In this subcontinent, we often see some political leaders trying to establish political dynasties — such misguided attempts often become a curse rather than a
blessing.
Some of our leaders scarcely bother to defend their records, instead aiming to convince the voters that they are more inspiring, competent or honest than their opponents. They concentrate, rather on scaring people about the policies and misdeeds of their predecessors and opponents.
A fair assessment of this government's record must begin by acknowledging that it has effectively marginalised faith-based terrorism and the flow of violent radicalism. It tried to pursue better relations with India and is working hard to get some of the big infrastructure projects off the ground.
But critics claim this government miserably failed to brand itself as an agent of change. The electorate barely
believes that this government genuinely cherishes the idea of an effective Anti-Corruption Commission, to intensify the battle against the scourge of corruption in the public life; an independent and reliable Election Commission, to ensure free and fair elections, entrenching solid democratic processes; a reliable judiciary to promote social justice, and to put an end to the extra judicial killing accompanied by grotesque human rights abuses.
Our voters are very smart and clever. They may think the Awami League has run its course, and failed to meet that goal, making a change of government essential. On the other hand, the notion that the change of government will magically cure these deep-rooted problems is also a mis-
take. Some poor people reckon that "When you can't put food on your family's plate, it is hard to care about votes."
Critics say that the government is looking for sources of votes, not growth. Therefore, they are trying to fight poverty by using various benefits. But it barely seemed to grasp, let alone fix, the ingrained cultural and behavioral problems that help to keep some poor people poor. Moreover, the waning of agricultural jobs, (largely due to the widespread use of power tillers, tractors and power pumps), which used to be the mainstay of the rural working class has created a generation of young males who don't know what to do with themselves. Too many children still leave primary school unable to read and write properly. Our schools and colleges are failing to give our young children the skills they need to get a job. A globalised world demands highly skilled workers. The proportion of 15-20 year olds, not in education, employment or training, has risen sharply. The good news is that government appears to be keen on overhauling education and plans to build more good schools in the deprived rural areas.
In the Western democracies, when a government reaches the midway point of its term, it needs to inhale some political oxygen and normally reshuffle its pack by adding to the cabinet some popular flamboyant leaders, thereby bringing life back to its time in office.
Former U.S. President Richard Nixon, while traveling to China commented that 'both prosperity and adversity teaches, but adversity teaches more.' However, I feel adversity hasn't taught this impoverished nation anything yet. Our land is very fertile; the people of this country are hungry for jobs. Our music, our food and our family bonds are the envy of other nations. So, how with all this has the country remained so desperately poor for such a long time? I do not know. Perhaps the answer lies in the heavens.
The writer is a former investment banker