& 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

Democracy brutalised

Rifat Munim
**The irony is that the party which, among others, spearheaded the country's democratic movement has itself assumed the form of an autocrat.***
ONE does not have to be a political analyst to understand that the AL-led ruling alliance did everything that could possibly be done to strangle the opposition's fundamental political rights to hold the March 12 rally. But one surely has to go deeper to comprehend first the undemocratic manner in which all these were done and secondly the goals that the ruling alliance sought to realize through these means.
The right to hold a rally is clearly enshrined in the constitution of this country as long as it is conducted in a peaceful manner. As such, the BNP which had announced its 'Dhaka Cholo' programme several months ago had every right to arrange this grand rally to hit home its demands for the caretaker government along with other issues. If it did anything to unsettle the law and order situation during the programme, there were law enforcing agencies to contain those subversive elements and the media to report the violence that would suffice to tarnish the opposition's image. Something, however, occurred to the ruling alliance which only precipitated a different course of action.
Veering away from democratic principles, some of the esteemed leaders of the AL with important portfolios in the present government had some visionary insights that thousands in militant outfits are rushing to the March 12 rally to unleash chaos in the city and so on. As those premonitions were made public just a few days before the rally, the law enforcers wasted no time to launch a set of overt and covert ploys all over the country, the pretext of which was all too obvi-
ous: To save the city from an impending BNP-sponsored disaster. Then the countdown to the rally began and the ploys grew more heavy-handed and obvious: law enforcers with heavy arms ran from house to house and hotel to hotel, either searching for or arresting any new comer or BNP activist; they harassed thousands of workaholics or commuters in the streets seizing their personal belongings; they closed all the major water and road routes to Dhaka; they requisitioned virtually all the city buses so that communications came to a grinding halt; they came out on an arrest spree on the final day all over the country; to top it all off, the ruling party employed their students, labour and other political sword arms to work in complicity with the police.
The way the ruling alliance has dealt with the March 12 rally aptly reminds one of any autocratic regime. And herein lies the irony that the party which, among others, spearheaded the country's democratic movement has itself assumed the form of an autocrat. It also seems to forget that it was as a result of the anti-Ershad movement that Bangladesh finally emerged as a democracy where freedom of expression and movement matters the most.
As it should be clear by now, far from trying to contain
any subversive element, the government was categorically intending to bar people from joining the rally, the objective of which was to make the rally flop. But ironically enough, despite all their heavy-handed measures, the not-too-big space in front of the BNP office (BNP was not allowed to hold the rally at the Paltan Maidan) was overflowing with people. Not a single incident of violence erupted unless law enforcing agencies or the marauding pro-AL students and labour wings assaulted the opposition first. Now the question logically arises: Did the rally end in futility? Or all those obstructions and intimidations backfired and resulted ironically in overrating a programme which otherwise would not have created such a huge furore amongst mass people. The latter, in
hindsight, seems to be the case and rightly so, because apart from BNP activists all over the country, it is the common people who had to bear the brunt of all the repressive measures prior to the rally. Tons of vegetables and fish got rotten as those could not enter the city, a fact which will negatively impact food price in the coming days. Not only the people had to put off their business and other urgent trips but also had to bear with the humiliating, Pakistan period-styled police search both at home and in the streets. In the name of security, law enforcers in fact infused a sense of insecurity among the people who have nothing to do with politics of one kind or the other.
Whenever the opposition comes up with any programme, the AL's trademark reaction is that it is directed towards foiling the war crimes trial. It was no different in this case. Although the BNP questioned the
transparency of the International Crimes Tribunal, it brought to the fore the caretaker government as well as some other issues. There is no gainsaying the fact that the war crimes trial must be held as immediately as possible but in the same breath constructive criticism regarding anything should always be encouraged in a democratic country. Another vitriol launched by the AL is about BNP's boycotting of the parliament. As much discreet as it may sound, the very recent personal attacks unleashed by two female AL lawmakers on the opposition leader were such that BNP's boycotting does not seem unwarranted at all.
An autocrat, by definition, rides roughshod over the democratic rights of individuals and political parties. A democratic government, on the other hand, does just the opposite, paving the way for exercising individual as well as collective freedom so long as it does not stand in the way of others. In the case of the just-concluded rally, the present government, though half-heartedly, gave its nod to hold the rally yet did everything to spoil that. So it played the role of a democratic and autocratic government at the same time. In short, it was marked by ambivalence. Every act of ambivalence, as Mr Freud puts it, underlies an uncanny fear which perfectly applies to this case as well because such fears are manifest through an excessively frenzied spate of activities. What is the ruling alliance's heavy-handed dealing if not a frenzied spate of activities? Now the question is: what does the government fear so much? What does it try to conceal by repeatedly putting all the blame for whatever bad things happen in the country? There are three plausible answers for this: One, it is afraid of its failures being exposed in front of thousands of people; two, the issue of the caretaker will come to the fore again which does not bode well for the government; and three, it is afraid of being outnumbered by BNP as its own rally will be held today at the adjacent areas of the
Bangabandhu National Stadium.
May be all these are valid points. May be today the ruling alliance, with law enforcers ensuring their security, will be able to gather activists twice as much as BNP's rally. May be someone will say when BNP-led alliance was in power; almost the same obstructions had been faced by AL activists during their rally. May be all these are true. But equally true is the fact that we no longer live in an ancient kingdom or under an autocrat where the king or queen's wishes reign supreme. BNP made mistakes and paid the price. If AL follows suit, it will pay the price too. People are not blind anymore. They will bide their time till the next election and let the party bosses know what is what.
Rifat Munim is Senior Editorial Assistant, The Daily Star
Email: rifatmunim@gmail.com