& 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

'A failure of practice, not the system'
Professor of Political Science at Jahangirnagar University Al-Masud Hasanuzzaman talks to Ahmad Ibrahim of The Daily Star on the role of the opposition party in the Bangladeshi parliament and the many contentious issues surrounding the current situation.
The Daily Star (TDS): How would you characterise the current government? Is this situation unique to Bangladesh?
Al-Masud Hasanuzzaman (AMH): If we are to take the recent January 5 elections into account then I will have to look at it as a collective failure. Elections are aimed at establishing electoral democracy. However, the collective failure of the incumbent government, the former opposition alliance, concerned actors and the Election Commission made it non-participatory. The 19-party alliance did not take part in the elections and we have seen that the alliance that came to power formed the opposition as well. This raises doubts as to the credibility of the current government. It has led to a scenario where the Jatiya Party forms part of the Treasury as well as acting as the main opposition in the House. Although they made it clear before that they were to act as a responsible and democratic opposition in the parliament, we are yet to see any signs of that. They have not been performing their job of overseeing the workings of the executive branch and are very much a 'loyal opposition.'
The current situation is unique in the sense that one party is involved on both sides of the coin. There might be a need to form a national, inclusive government for a country during times of crisis but it is against the workings of parliamentary democracy, which, at its basest, means a competition for state power. In that sense, 1 would say the current situation is very much unique.
TDS: It is common to see mudslinging between political parties in Bangladesh and in most cases the opposition does not deliver constructive criticism of the government, choosing instead to be negative. Why is opposition politics so steeped in negativity?
AMH: I think in this case we have to look at the political culture we have in place at the moment and realise that intolerance and confrontation form the basis of it. The opposition is always unwilling to provide legitimacy to any of the government's doings. We have seen that the oppositions in the past remained unwilling to sit in the plenary, including the
significant budget sessions of the parliament. It stems from our culture of mutual intolerance, where it becomes the number one priority of both sides to call the activities of the other unconstitutional and illegitimate. Critique of policy that has an actual impact on the socio-economic landscape of the country takes a backseat.
TDS: What scope does the opposition have to impact parliament through legislation and have the oppositions in Bangladesh's democratic history carried out this job?
AMH: Any democracy is meaningless without the opposition. We were hopeful that the post-90 period would be able to
cultivate a democratic opponent that oversaw the workings of the incumbent government. The role of the opposition in democracy is to criticise and scrutinise policies by the government and to provide alternative policies on the floor. For this, the opposition has many legislative devices at its disposal. However, the historical non-cooperation means it has never done so properly. The shadow cabinets are supposed to scrutinise the MPs in power but a failure by the opposition to mobilise resources has meant that it has never done so. To this end, the opposition has often complained of persecution by the government, which
has not been shy of using its coercive power to suppress the opposition. The opposition has also claimed that the Speaker plays a partisan role. These are serious claims that need to be addressed if parliamentary democracy is to function.
TDS: Is it a fault in the system or our political culture that makes the opposition so easily resort to violence as means of protest?
AMH: Parliamentary democracy in itself is a very sophisticated system which hinges on the diffusion of power to many branches. I would say that it is not a fault of the system but the way in which it has been put into practice. Most political parties are controlled by central leaderships which makes the spread of power and responsibility skewed. For instance, opposition MPs have often been unable to do their duties because the leader of the opposition has ordered a walk-out. They are left helpless, with no choice but to obey. It leaves a void for which both the major political parties, the AL and BNP, are to be blamed. This dynamic also means that the opposition's chant after elections has always been to dislodge the government, by means of agitation and violence. Had there been an even spread of power throughout the party then MPs might have been able to provide alternatives to the government's policies and criticise the lawmaking. As it is, violence is the by-product of this unhealthy system of power grabbing. It often results from the opposition being backed into a corner but it is the opposition that has backed itself into a corner.
TDS: Why is BNP, which is still considered by the general consensus as the main opposition, so inactive at this time?
AMH: BNP’s aim was to repeal the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished the caretaker system. They aimed to bring this change about through street agitations and violence. The long streak of strikes and the unprecedented violence, however, stopped soon after the January 5 elections. It demoralised the BNP that they could not have their demands met. But the unprecedented
show of violence also made them lose public support, something they have to recover if they are to get back on track. The BNP can no longer hold on to the idea of getting the government to come to their terms with violence. They are now in a state of rebuilding and they have to focus on building a rapport with the people once again before they are able to mount anything substantial. For this, they must go through legitimate and constructive channels.
TDS: What does the current state of affairs spell out for the role of opposition in Bangladeshi politics in the future?
AMH: At the moment the political landscape is dominated by two major parties. Every other party has no choice but to be absorbed by these two. Currently we have the 14-party alliance, which is in power, and the 19-party alliance. The post-91 period saw a decline in the factionalism and the many independent parties because they no longer have the base to move away and form a separate political party. The rise of a third party is unlikely because of the concentration of resources by both these parties. It only spells bad news for our politics, not only for opposition politics.
TDS: Finally, what is the future of the current government? Is it a situation that can be sustainable?
AMH: It is too early in the new government's tenure to speculate on whether it is sustainable or not. The opposition, Jatiya Party, may look legitimate on paper but they need to carry out their duties better if they are to be remembered as a commendable opposition. At the same time, many people were unable to vote this time and they yearn to see a competitive democracy where their right to vote is put to use. Whatever the case, all political parties must work to ensure that the next election is an inclusive one and not just leave it at that. The elections are a means to an end and not the end in itself, the real work begins afterwards. And both the government and the opposition have to carry out their roles diligently to make it a properly functioning democracy.