& 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

Breaking the impasse
****In the kind of democracy that is practiced in our situation none of the parties are prepared to lose in a general election. When we recognise that reality we might take steps to institutionalise democracy. The ruling party shall hope to win and that is not unfair. The determination to cling to power and retain it anyway is a damper to democratic nuances.***
The political opposition's intended "March to Dhaka" on March 12 and a grand assembly thereafter can-
not be considered a policy, far less a strategy. At best it could be termed as a significant posture that appears to be more tactical. We may be witnessing good street politics but the same is not at all conducive to the quality or the sustainability of parliamentary democracy or the promotion of good governance.
As of now, the opposition speaks the language of the street. It threatens of a one-point programme to oust the government from power by forcing it to resign and to call a premature poll. Such an agitation has no political legitimacy behind it. There is no record of a government in Bangladesh or anywhere else having to relinquish power because of power failure or because of corruption and police brutality.
Sensible citizens would recognise that the situation today in Bangladesh on all the three aforementioned areas is not satisfactory and that it is largely the responsibility of the government to improve the situation. The incumbent government has to resolve the other long-festering problems of mal-governance. However, it is in the nature of democratic politics that an elected government be given five years to prove its worth.
To attempt to unseat an elected government before its five years are up, no matter how unsatisfactory its performance, reflects impatience for power by the opposition and reluctance to accept the rules of the demo-
cratic process. Therefore, if five years is considered as too long to permit for the persistence of mal-governance by a particular regime we can amend the constitution to set a reduced tenure of office. The process has to be done legally with a political consensus arrived through a national consultation.
As the situation obtains now, whatever is happening is attributed to the failure of the ruling party. While this may not be fair, the inescapable reality is that by the time a regime enters
the second half of its tenure, it has either solved its inherited problems or it has demonstrated quite conspicuously that it is on the way to doing so. Therefore, blaming misdeeds of past governments would not be accepted as legal defence to explain current deficits. Lack of action in quite credible as well as visible ways will ensure that the defaults are the responsibility of the incumbent government.
The confrontational politics in Bangladesh has now sadly entered a unique phase wherein the two principal parties have stopped talking to each other and only communicate through the newspaper headlines. This does not befit the ethos of a dem-
ocratic polity. A conciliatory political leadership would substantially enhance the credibility of the leader in the eyes of the people and the world. The government is expected to make the first gesture.
In any political dispensation the supreme leaders should engage in dialogue. The ice may be broken by the ruling party. As of now, this may seem fanciful but elsewhere in the world far more intractable adversaries have negotiated their difference. If we retrace our steps we would find that it
was quite unprecedented that the ruling party in a sense was being ordered to bring a bill for constitutional amendment in fulfillment of the opposition's demand. It was, however, not a healthy democratic precedent.
The cynics would say that the caretaker mechanism, for restoration of which the opposition is mounting an all-out movement was actually a concession grudgingly made. The mutual mistrust has to be broken because one can detect an unbroken chain of mistrust in the political process. When 13th amendment to the constitution was effected ensuring a caretaker dispensation for free and fair
election under an apolitical arrangement, the process was marked by lack of grace.
In the kind of democracy that is practiced in our situation none of the parties are prepared to lose in a general election. When we recognise that reality we might take steps to institutionalise democracy. The ruling party shall hope to win and that is not unfair. The determination to cling to power and retain it anyway is a damper to democratic nuances.
It is time to dwell at length on the relative merits of the proposition of Sir Stephen Ninian's prescription (1995) along with the "Ishtiaque formula (August 1995) and that of the group of five of the same period in so far as it relates to a mechanism for overseeing a free and fair election.
The essence of the demand of the opposition is to hold elections under a neutral non-partisan government and the essence of the government stand in this regard is that the resolution of the issue has to be within the framework of the constitution. It appears possible to arrive at a solution by remaining within the parameters of the constitution if we apply our minds to the three propositions mentioned above.
It is time to strike a balance between often competing and discordant notions of neutrality as propounded by the key political parties. Some efforts in the past, particularly of the group of five in devising the complexion of the neutral body to oversee elections, are insightful in its analysis of the political psyche of key political actors. The political attitudes have not perhaps changed favourably for democracy but the quest for a peaceful resolution of our political existence demands greater attention.
The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.