& 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

Brinkmanship or sheer madness?

SYED FATTAHULALIM
THE speculation now going the rounds is what will happen on October 25 and after. But why should it be so hard to predict things about a time that is only a week and a half away?
That is because the government has deliberately left its decision on the timing of the next general election hanging as it has not yet come clean about the timeline of dissolving parliament. One may recall that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina last year at the Jatiya Sangsad (Parliament) suggested that parliament might be dissolved on October 24, 2013 for holding 10th general election. But that she had backtracked from that position became clear last August when she told secretaries at a cabinet committee meeting that the election would be held under present AL government.
But then what will happen to main opposition BNP's demand for a non-party neutral poll-time government to conduct the election, if the present government continues after Octocer 24? A desperate BNP has thus threatened to take control of things from that cut-off date.
Thanks to the sinister policy of overreaching each other pursued by our two major political parties, they have forced the nation into this state of uncertainty and wild speculation.
In its endless political war of attrition, the ruling Awami League (AL) is now pitted against its arch rival the opposition BNP. Is it then any surprise that the nation is now in the dark about how the country will be run about a week later?
The crisis, which is unnecessary and created artificially, only points to the height of irresponsibility that the ruling political elite of the country has reached. Things could not have come to such a pass, if only the ruling party and the opposition been able to reach a minimum understanding on how the election-time administration would be run. But that is not to be. Why? Because, if anything, the leadership of these parties care only about their personal interests and egos and not about the people they are supposed to lead. And they don't really believe they owe their power and privilege to the people. On the contrary, they think the parties they command are the real source of power. And the people? They are but a faceless, gullible lot, who are there only to be manipulated at will.
Small wonder the leadership of these parties are least bothered about how the people might react to their excesses. Otherwise how could they hold the entire nation hostage to their stubbornness born of limitless arrogance?
What has been unfolding before our eyes is a power struggle between two social clans in its most primitive form. Hypocritically, they are masquerading as political parties with presumptuous claims of even being democratic! And in this mortal struggle for retaining control The present crop of leadership in the major parties have through their so-called exercise of brinkmanship been successful, at least in plunging society into chaos and uncertainty.
over state power or grabbing it by fair means or foul, they have been trampling all norms and ethics of civilised politics. All's fair in love and war. But then we are not talking here about parliamentary form of politics and election where some basic norms and values are maintained.
Some faithful acolytes of the reigning party political leadership might like to call this politics of brinkmanship, and exponents of one of these parties or other would even like to give the leader of their choice the credit for being the master player in this dangerous art. While they like to gloat over this Dullesian policy of brinkmanship, they often forget its historical context was different. In fact, using this diplomacy of pushing things to its extreme in the hope that the opponent would back down from its stance in most cases gave rise to no-win situations for the LIS government, of which John Foster Dullles, the Presbyterian crusader against godless communism, was the secretary of state. The brinkmanship diplomacy of containing the then-Soviet Russia during General Eisenhower's presidency only created a world order (the Cold War era) that was not safer, but more dangerous for humanity.
The present crop of leadership in the major parties have through their so-called exercise of brinkmanship been successful, at least in plunging society into chaos and uncertainty.
The reigning political elite by their irresponsible behaviour have only exposed their infantile nature and their incapacity for leading the country and the people.
The writer is Editor, Science & Life, The Daily Star.
E-mail: sfalim.ds@gmail.com