& 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

Premonitions in a volatile polity

MUHAMMAD NURUL HUDA
IN the current politically charged situation the phenomenon of political violence assumes special significance. Reference is made to violence that calls for a political response from the state authorities rather than a police response. The latter is often necessary but not deemed sufficient. Political violence might imply that in a situation of large-scale institutional malfunctioning, politics would acquire an appetite for all spaces, both public and private.
Following independence in 1947, political leaders in the sub-through pre-existing bureaucratic
structure. Perhaps they thought that the rational-legal bureaucracy created and left behind by the British had its utility in the state-building they were undertaking. This has been a reality despite the politicians legitimising the institutions of parliament, cabinet and the political party.
Ironically, in our democratic polity, the state relies largely on the coercive machinery not only for information pertaining to conflict and violence, but also for the analysis and interpretation of violence in terms of its nature, causes and, solutions. The colonially derived significance of such dependency on coercive and regulatory apparatuses need to be studied and understood, in determining state responses to violent movements.
The holding of election with a view to selecting the power-wielders is a common practice in democracy. Unfortunately, in Bangladesh the political parties look upon election as a do-or-die battle. Defeat in the electoral fight has not only meant political loss but has also resulted in incidents of physical insecurity for the leaders and also their supporters. State power and consequent favours and patronage have been uppermost in engaging the attention of potential and actual contenders for political power.
Interestingly, victory in the election has not only ensured the partisan use of state resources it has also unlawfully protected the deviant political workers from criminal and civil liabilities. Added to this is the patron-client syndrome of our individual-centric political parties. In other words, the leader is the promoter-distributor of favours and the others are favour seeking satellites. The state power is required to promote and sustain such patronage. One could perhaps trace the origin of the ever increasing financial corruption to such unsavoury relationship.
The institution of cases, particularly the criminal ones, against political adversaries in the opposition, has been a potent tool to socially, psychologically and also politically harass the opponents. The expeditious trial of such cases
does not appear to be a priority. Serious complaints of corruption as well as cases of petty offences against many political leaders and activists have been purposely kept pending. As such, there is an uncomfortable realisation that to ward off political humiliation the party has to be firmly and continuously saddled in power. Such a state of affairs is the result of politics being reduced to a zero-sum game in which the winner takes all.
The so-called civil society activists have also benefitted from the sharp political polarisation of our society. By being aligned will either of the major political parties they have consolidated their social position and ensured personal security. Some have reportedly gained financially. Ideological support to the political parties by such activists has inextricably bound them to the rise and fall of political fortunes. As a result, victory in the national election has been considered as an issue of survival.
Apprehensions about post-election situation are not unfounded if one cares to look at the contentious issues of trial of war criminals, the rise of religion-based political forces, and specially the controversy surrounding the advent of Hefajat-e-Islam. For those who want to see a clear distinction between the state and religion, better identified as secularists, there is a worry that the departure of Awami League from political power would not only signal their ideological defeat it would also mean reversion to religious obscurantism and attendant terrorism.
Such fears are not entirely without basis in view of the experiences of the recent past. The point to note is that those fears have not been adequately assuaged. Failure to take a principled and determined stand against forces that quite clearly do not subscribe to a pluralist dispensation does not augur well for a democratic polity. The completion of election drill alone will not minimise incidents of violence.
The fears of being dislodged from political power are understandable in our sharply polarised society where the political opponent has become the enemy. Indiscreet behaviour, arrogance and blatant flouting of law by ruling party elements have compounded the fear psychosis wherein incumbents apprehend retributory attacks as soon as they lose official protection. The vicious attacks by Jamaat-Shibir elements should cause worries about the security scenario because retaliatory measures by their political opponents might cause a serious breakdown of law and order.
The major opposition has been out of political power for seven years and may be apprehending another spell in opposition with concomitant distress. For Jamaat, the present scenario is one of a desperate fight for existence. The ruling party is fighting a precarious battle for political continuity. The sheer volatility of the socio-political situation should give rise to all kinds of premonitions. Good luck and good sense, and providential mercy, may save us.
The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.