& 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

Zen and the art of elections in BD: The sound of one hand clapping

Ansar Ahmad
f | TI IE recently concluded elections in Bangladesh has an almost surreal quality to it. There were several features about them that were as fascinating as they were unique.
First, it was an election without electors. As everyone must know by now, only 11 out of 41 registered parties participated in the polls; 153 out of 300 seats were declared uncontested (even the President, the PM, the Speaker of the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition or the Ghief Election Gommissioner could not cast their votes); and the pattern of voting appeared to be odd, with abrupt and inexplicable surges in polling activity towards the end of the day. Compared to the usual enthusiasm for voting demonstrated by Bangladeshis (in the last election, the participation rate was almost 87%), the turnoutin this election was abysmal, and the "mandate" provided to the ruling party most dubious.
Second, this was an election without election campaigns, and a Parliament without a meaningful opposition. Most of the parties that participated in the polls had essentially belonged to the same alliance, and reflected a vote-sharing arrangement rather than electoral competition. Almost all the parties that won seats in the parliament (except for two with one member each) have beenrewarded with ministerial appointments. Given the fact that the party of the current Leader of the Opposition is also part of the Cabinet, It is clear that any opposition in the Parliament will, at best, have only token presence and little significance.
Third, the election was certainly constitutional but hardly democratic. The Awami League (AL) had steadfastly maintained that it had to hold the elections to satisfy constitutional requirements, and has conceded that another may be held soon. This fierce fidelity to the constitution, particularly one it had conveniently amended, regardless of what kind of an election we can have, or whether democratic norms were being respected, reminds one of Gen. Westmoreland's memorable justification about the need to destroy a Vietnamese village in order to save it.
Fourth, this was an election without issues. The Election Manifesto of the AL was published only a week before the elections. Since the document is supposed to indicate the principles, promises, policies, priorities and visions of the party, it was obvious that NONE of those factors was considered important enough to be actually placed before the people for their consideration and judgment. Similarly,the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) raised no issues of national interest. Instead of seizing on the considerable vulnerabilities of the AL regime (massive corruption, violations of the rule of law, governmental incompetence, foreign policy failures, and so on), the party chose to fixate on the PM.It was willing to moderate its stance on the Caretaker Government, but not on tolerating her.
Fifth, and following along the same theme, this was an election about shadowy enemies and grotesque caricatures. The AL appeared to run against the Jamaat, a party that could not even contest in this election and had received less than 5%ofthevotein 1991 and 1996. It slyly politicised the War Grimes Trial, and under the slogan of muktijuddher chetana (the consciousness of the Liberation War) proceeded to demonise the opposition forbeing Pakistani/Saudi stooges, religious militants, and anti-independence traitors.
The BNP, for its part, shrewdly played the India card and seemed to be running against a foreign country. Helped by India's tone-deafness regarding the nationalist aspirations and sensitivities of Bangladeshis, the BNP posed alarmist questions about jeopardising our sovereignty by surrendering to India's hegemonic designs. Its associates (like the Hefazot-e-Islam), decried the moral decadence, and the dangers, of secular fundamentalism.
Consequently, if we believe our leaders, there are no authentic or patriotic Bangladeshis in the country anymore. They areeither Razakars and Islamic extremists tied to external forces, orthey are anti-Islamic Indian dalals, both of whomhave made the Faustian bargain to sell their souls, and their country, to one or the other of the equally despicable options.
Sixth, this was an election that signified colossal failures -moral for the AL and political for the BNP. Through its dogmatic insistence on holding the polls according to the predetermined schedule, in not allowing political space for the opposition to function (indeed, its reckless use of party loyalists and the instruments of the State to hound and harass the opposition), its influence over the Election Commission, it's taunting, at times, vulgar, rhetoric even in Parliament, the party besmirched its image and its honour.
For the BNP a series of tactical misstepsled it to lose face and public trust. It maintained its program of hartals and blockades with its accompanying violence and vandalism, disruptions and anxieties, with a relentless single-mindedness that indicated a callous indifference tothe safety of the people or the well-being of the country. Its March for Democracy stumbled because AL out-hustledand out-muscled it, and sputtered when Begum Zia spoke to the press from the steps of her house (while she could not go to the meeting, the opportunity to present her case came to her, but she could not use that prospect very effectively). Her son's stentorian message from the comforts and safety of London to exhort the people to rush to the movement at any cost and not wait for any signs and signals,was unnecessarily provocative andprobably alienating. The leadership of the BNP remained conflicted, its relationship withjamaat confused, its message garbled.
Finally, this was an election that, instead of strengthening our democracy; exposed its fragility. Democracy is ultimately about the transition from power to authority - the first is arbitrary; centralised and unrestrained, the second is limited in scope, diffuse and has a moral component associated with it. The first is based on fear and manipulation, the second depends on consensus and legitimacy. The first is direct, naked and personal. The second is mediated, rule-based and institutional. The first is indifferent to consequences. The second is defined by them. The first is secured through cunning and force, the second through ensuring popular sovereignty through free, participatory, credibleelections.
The challenge for Bangladesh is not about tinkering with electoral procedure but about radically transforming the political culture, not dueling with quixotic windmills but grappling with fundamental problems, not a choice between this Begum and that, but about problematising the master narrative.
But elections in Bangladesh are merely a ruse, a temporary ritual, a cynical game, a clash of egos and interests rather than that of ideas and visions. It merely provides the opportunity to choose which cluster of rulers (and their dependent clientele) will exploit the resources and protections of the stateas they seek to benefit themselves. The leaders use the election to acquire the legal validation of "authority", and immediately' resort to exerting "power"in the traditional sense. In the process, and for opportunistic reasons, they muddy the political environment. They debate Bangladesh's history (who declared independence, was BKSAL worse than the indemnity act, who allied with whom at what time, and so on) rather than Bangladesh's future. They use the rhetoric of threats and ultimatums with the stated objective of crushing the opposition, rather than the language of tolerance and trust with the intention of working with them. They peddle paranoia, conspiracies, and fantasies, rather than engage with real issues and solutions. The hyper-polarisation we see in the body politic is manufactured, mischievous, and dangerous. It fools the people and dooms the country.
The challenge for Bangladesh is not about tinkering with electoral procedure but about radically transforming the political culture, not dueling with quixotic windmills but grappling with fundamental problems, not a choice between this Begum and that, but about problematising the master narrative. Until we are able to do that, the hapless people of Bangladesh will be condemned to suffer the leadership it does not need, nor deserve.
The title is taken from Robert Pirsig'sclassic, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
The writer teaches political science at Black Hills State University, SD, USA.