& 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

Are they listening?
OVER the last few days Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, from different public gatherings, has been seeking people's mandate to rule the country for another term. From a party rally at Suhrawardy Uddyan last Friday to the women's gathering in Ashulia on Sunday, at every meeting that she addressed, she was soliciting votes for boat, the election symbol of Awami League.
She was, however, using all the privileges of her position as PM while canvassing for her party. But other political parties, including the opposition, were not getting the same government-provided
facilities and logistics to conduct their own electoral campaigns. Had the PM made such facilities available also to other parties in the race that would have been in the true spirit of democracy. It would create a level playing field for other participants in the election.
Under normal circumstances, vote begging by the PM from public meetings and party rallies would not have not aroused much of a controversy or question since the 10th Jatiya Sangsad (parliament) election is only five months away. But things don't seem as normal as the PM would like us to believe. For in yet another meeting of AL's student wing, BCL, on Saturday, she reiterated her position on the 15th Amendment to the constitution through which the provision of caretaker (CTG) system of election-time government was abolished. But she chose to restate her unwavering stance on the issue of election-time government knowing fully well that the opposition BNP's condition for participation in the election was restoration of CTG.
The opposition leader and BNP's chairperson, Khaleda Zia, on the other hand, has urged her party workers and leaders and the people at large to prepare for mass movement to reinstall the caretaker system of government. Obviously, the opposition leader was not in any election mood.
What message is the electorate getting from these mutually conflicting stances of the two major political stakeholders? The ruling Awami League will hold election under the present government come what may, while the opposition BNP will go for a movement to realise its demand to reinstate CTG.
How can the government then hope to hold a free and fair election leaving the main opposition out in the cold? If it is serious about the election, does it then want to hold it without the opposition? But did not the then-BNP as a ruling party try to hold such an opposition-less general election in February 1996? Why does the ruling AL now think that the result will be different this time?
There is a perception in the ruling party circles that, unlike Awami League, the BNP is weak at launching a tough movement, even though it often threatens the government with one. There is some element of truth in it, given the BNP's less regimented organisational structure than the AL's. Even so, the fact remains that neither of these parties did actually give in, in the face of opposition's movement during the last 23 years. It was after the end of each party's term in power that things changed for the better or for the worse. It was either a moral defeat or entry of a third party in the fray that determined the final course of events.
In 1996, the then-ruling BNP faced a moral defeat after holding February election. In 2007, the bloody skirmishes on the street drew the military-backed caretaker government into the scene. In fact, neither the ruling party's stiffness towards opposition's demands, nor the opposition's strength, or the lack of it, to launch an effective movement, did actually matter in the long run. In fact, it has always been a lose-lose situation for either party.
And there is also no overriding reason to believe that things will be different this time.
So, it's now deja vu all over again. We are as though witnessing a rerun of the chain of events that marked the ending of the first elected government after the fall of military dictatorship in 1990. The only difference is that the roles have reversed. At that time,
Are ive going to witness a re-enactment of what happened in 1996 or 2006? Or may be something even ivorse? Prognostications of civil society members, foreign diplomats and political observers are disquieting.
the ruling BNP was refusing to accommodate opposition AL's demand for holding election under a CTG on the excuse of constitutional bindings. Now, the ruling AL is producing the same argument of constitutional limitations to dismiss the opposition's demand. The fact remains that the new crisis has been created after removal of the CTG provision from the constitution by a High Court verdict. And it has come to the government's advantage, or so it seems.
Recently, there has been a flurry of activities in the diplomatic community. Even the UN secretary general has shown his keenness about the goings-on surrounding the next general elections in Bangladesh and is learnt to have stressed the need for a dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition for a credible election.
Are the government and the opposition listening? Or are we going to witness a re-enactment of what happened in 1996 or 2006? Or may be something even worse? Prognostications of civil society members, foreign diplomats and political observers are disquieting.
The writer is Editor, Science & Life, The Daily Star.
E-mail: sfallm@gmail.com