& 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

Bi-partisanship is the key
IN our disturbingly charged political climate, even the incorrigible optimists might scoff at discussions geared towards inculcating a bi-partisan approach in our political culture. They cannot be faulted as one sees a menacingly manifest partisan posture in all the discourses affecting public life.
So sharp is the polarisation and so acrimonious are the deliberations that one might not realise that we are citizens of a democratic republic.
Whatever be the ground reality, thoughts of bi-partisanship
shall inevitably engage the discerning minds. The reasons are simple because a nation which is constitutionally united to a degree but perilously disintegrated politically shall never have the inner strength which is so necessary to sustain in adversity or to progress towards prosperity.
We cannot deny that in Bangladesh we need much more of the spirit of moderation. This moderation should be reflective of a temper that will not press a partisan advantage to its bitter end. For democracy's sake and for development, the desirable political behaviour should be the one that understands and respects the other side and is appreciative of the unity between all citizens.
The above may sound like wishful thinking or fruitless entreaties in our increasingly confrontational political interactions. The fact, however, remains that democratic functioning would depend upon habits of consent and compromise that are attributes only of mature political societies.
The question is: Is that maturity achievable without gradually acclimatising to a bi-partisan approach in public affairs?
One has to admit that a lawful government by the majority, under the rule of abiding law, and with freedom of opposition and dissent is a difficult human achievement. This observation has a special meaning in our sociopolitical scenario where some quarters till now strongly believe that democracy does not suit the genius of our reactive polity. They have to be proven wrong. However, if the spirit of bi-partisanship does not prevail, our society will surely degenerate into divisions and hatred would replace goodwill. The cynics would have cause to be elated.
Bipartisanship, to be workable in our political culture, has to take note of the ground reality wherein there is an overriding necessity of a one-to-one dialogue between the two supreme leaders of the two major political parties of the country. This aspect assumes special significance when, quite clearly, the two leaders are not in any meaningful communication.
It is pertinent to note that the politics of summitry, whether in the international context or on the domestic plane, requires painstaking homework to sort out the thorny issues - may be not all in one go - to enable the supreme leaders to arrive at a desirable outcome.
As far as the dialogue of our two principal leaders is concerned, the first task may be to thrash out some common agreements through the wisdom of our political leaders who should be able to arrive at a bare reducible minimum.
Thereafter, the leaders may engage in meaningful discussion, aided and supported by the civil society with tacit backup from friendly quarters.
To facilitate bipartisanship the leaders may agree on the following:
That assassination or murder for political or any objec-b tive cannot be condoned and the guilty must be brought under the law.
That complete and unconditional commitment to Bangladesh's political identity as a sovereign democratic republic has to be unequivocally ensured.
That while criminal activities in support of political objective have to be punished, the emerging political change has to be recognised in the light of the reality warranted by irreversible circumstances.
That contribution to the War of Liberation by all concerned has to be recognised in true measures and political history of the country has to be recorded in proper perspective.
And last but not the least both parties display the magnanimity to acknowledge the aberrations caused to the polity by their respective policy and action.
Let us remember that the modern State is a system for civilised people to lead a lawful life. The impartial and dispassionate performance of some vital institutions ensures the success of such an existence. Prominent among those are the judiciary, the education system, public service, and the media whose lively and positive actions guarantee the fulfillment of societal goals and maintenance of its vitality.
Of late, we have been hearing ominous utterances of 'failed state' and 'failed government.’ If we do not want this denigration and debasement then we must ensure the care of the vital institutions. This sacred responsibility falls principally on the politicians who, however, have to be strongly and actively supported by the judiciary and the media, amongst others.
If merit is not accorded its due in the education system, economic activities are prejudiced by partisan considerations, appointments in public service are politically influenced, it would not be possible to halt the polarisation and the divisive trends, and at some point in time the grim scenario of "failed state" might become a reality.
Coming to specifics, there are several issues of governance in our parlance wherein bi-partisanship is expected to deliver publicly beneficial outcomes. Unhealthy influence on public services that mars professionalism and ultimately impacts dispassionate service delivery should be an area of utmost concern. If politicians across the divide display the desired bi-partisan approach in the creation and nurturing of the correct service ethos befitting the public servants of the republic, we would be stopping a harmful practice.
We would only do ourselves a service by remembering that in an independent nation, leaders build the institutions and in due course of time those institutions produce the leaders. There is, therefore, no time to tinker with the institutions. They should be allowed to grow to promote and sustain democracy. The specter of stateless society in some parts of the world should serve as a grave reminder.
We are perhaps losing sight of the fact that democracy cannot be limited to holding election, convening the parliament and forming the council of ministers only. The reality is that democracy is a way of life wherein we must have the courage to listen to a different opinion, the tolerance to respect the views of everyone on religion-culture-language, and the patience to obey the rule of law. A free media, an independent judiciary and strong regulatory institutions in their rightful glorious places are the hallmarks of a free society.
In our efforts towards establishing bipartisanship and thus ushering in a healthy polity the leaders may have to accept painful compromises. However, we may draw inspiration from our Prophet (PBUH) who accepted many unjust conditions for promoting peace in the greater interest of Islam. His sagacity is our guide.
The writer Is a columnist of The Dally Star.