& 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

Haze of denial and complacency
HAVE the results of the just completed first phase of the upazila elections come as a surprise to the ruling AL, or as something expected? Obviously, it is not being easy for AL to digest the outcome because the polls results show that the BNP and its alliance partner Jamaat have taken a clear lead over the incumbent AL.
Even so, they are trying to put
a brave front on it saying that this electoral event has again amply demonstrated that elections held under this government are free and fair. So how wrong BNP was in its decision not to participate in the January 5 election to the 10 th Jatiya Sangsad!
But if the ruling party's prime objective in the upazila polls was to show to the world that elections under it are always free and fair, then shouldn't it have also encouraged BNP to participate in the polls? Otherwise, how could AL prove its neutrality and fairness in an election? But consid-
ering the pre and post upazila polls remarks made by some AL leaders, it appears they were not at all happy about BNP and its partners' participation in the polls. Industry Minister Amir Hosssain Amu, for instance, rather than welcoming rival BNP in the the polls, mocked and criticized it saying it must lick the dust before participating in the UZ polls. Why? Because by not participating in January 5 JS polls or by terming the post-January 5 AL government illegal, it has lost its moral right to participate in any election under AL rule, etc, etc. What then was Al expecting? Another uncontested election in the style of the January 5 one? Would such an upazila polls be good for AL's image?
But one finds it hard to reconcile the AL leadership's pre-upazila polls mindset with that of the post-polls reactions. Worse yet, they are not even willing to accept the fact that AL performed rather badly in the upazila polls. On the contrary, they are trying to explain away their lackluster performance in the first phase of the upazila polls with various lame arguments: AL did actually perform better than its rival BNP, only that its votes were divided among its own rebel and loyal candidates. So, they would aruue, if one counted all the votes cast in favour of all AL candidates, rebel or loyal, the total would be greater than that obtained by the BNP and its allies.
These are nothing but face saving excuses. This kind of argument of aggregate votes only confuses the issue. For what we are practicing here is Westminster system in which the candidate who passes the post first is considered to be the victor. So, the number of chairman and vice-chairman seats AL-backed candidates had won should be the measure of their performance. Once in the game, on should have the mentality to play it and accept the results in a sportsman's spirit. But AL is still continuing to exhibit its characteristic denial mode about accepting the polls result. As a result of such attitude, AL is actually depriving itself of deeper understanding of the jest held polls, for example, shift, if any, in the voting behaviour of the electorate, what factors were responsible for relatively poorer performance of the AL candidates, why contestants from the rival parties have fared better and what, if any, were the mistakes in the AL's electoral strategy and what corrective measures it can take not to repeat those in the feature.
A closer scrutiny would show some very startling outcomes of the election. With results of the city corporation elections held last year in retrospect, BNP's better performance in the upazila polls might not have raised many eyebrows. But how would one assess Jamaat-e-Islami-backed candidates' phenomenal performance in the polls? Consider that by grabbing 12 chairman and 30 vice-chairman posts, it has emerged as the third largest party in the upazila polls, while the Jatiya Party, which was so far touted as the third largest party has just been able to scrape through winning only one chairman seat and eight vice-chairman posts. Does this result carry any message, not only for future elections but also for the politics of the country as a whole?
Consider Jamaat's performance in
spite of all the bad press it has been receiving over the violent activities it and its student front, Shibir, had been pursuing since the International War Crimes Tribunal (ICT) started to pronounce the verdicts against its convicted leaders since February 2012? And then the unleashing of deadly violence, anarchy and chaos that engulfed the entire nation in the run-up to the January 5 general election, the blame for which has been put squarely on Jamaat's shoulder. Also, remember the continued police action against its activists, especially the combing operations carried out in the southwestern and northern districts where this party has strong bastions. How, against all the odds, could Jamaat achieve this amazing feat when leaders and activists of this party and its front organisations should have been on the run, and they are actually so? Has AL leadership given a serious thought to this strange development on the country's political horizon? And will they ask themselves, why is it so?
To all appearances, the ruling party is completely swallowed up by a sense of complacency, self-delusion and denial. It's hard to discern things in such haze.