Barrister Abdur Razzaq
UNLIKE many countries, Bangladesh was lucky that it got its independence only in 9 short months of armed struggle. The international situation was favourable. If one reads Henry Kissinger's White House Years, one is amazed to see how in 1971, at the height of the Cold War, the relationship between the two superpowers -- the US and the Soviet Union -- became strained on the Bangladesh issue. Bangladesh is unlucky that it has not been able to get out of its sick politics in the 38 long years of its independence.
38 years in a nation's life is not a long period, one may argue, and therefore, the nation needs more time to settle down. This is partially true. Although Bangladesh became independent in 1971, it has been practising democracy since at least the enactment of the Government of India Act 1935. The British colonised India, but built institutions like the legislative assembly and the judiciary.
In 1937, Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq had the honour of becoming United Bengal's first chief minister. Subsequently, Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy also became the chief minister of United Bengal. In 1956, Suhrawardy, the Awami League's president, became the prime minister of Pakistan. Abul Mansoor Ahmed and others became central ministers. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the architect of Bangladesh, Ataur Rahman Khan, and some others became provincial ministers. Therefore, it was not for the first time in 1971 that the responsibility of running the state was thrust upon our politicians. Our predecessors were aware of statecraft.
Politics is a tough business. Politicians need vision. It would not be unfair to say that Bangladesh's present day misery is primarily due to our politicians' failure. The circumstances leading to disruption of democracy in 1975, in 1982 and in 2007 were perhaps not very dissimilar. Almost all of our politicians, when voted to power, forget that they are no longer party leaders only, but that providence has made them national leaders. In most cases, the narrow mindset continues. The result is decline in the quality of politics.
The 1991, the BNP government's quality was much better than the 2001 BNP government's quality. Although the present government is only 9 months old, it appears that the 2009 Awami League government could be worse than the 1996 Awami League government. This phenomenon is alarming. Much more alarming is the fact that the successive governments -- across party lines -- with a view to clinging to power or coming back to power, have been destroying the institutions -- the Parliament, civil and military bureaucracy, and the judiciary.
Today, the country is facing a number of complicated issues -- the aftermath of the Pilkhana tragedy, the Tipaimukh Dam issue, joining the Asian Highway, giving transit facilities to India, demarcating the international maritime boundary, etc. On these issues we need a national consensus. But the nation is divided.
In a parliamentary democracy, it is the prime minister's duty to invite the opposition leader for talks on such issues, with a view to reaching a national consensus. This did not happen in the past. It is unlikely to happen now. A bipartisan foreign policy would have strengthened the government's hand.
Like all Parliaments since 1991, the present Parliament has also become dysfunctional. The opposition should attend Parliament, because not attending is bad political culture. It is an abuse of a privilege, a trust reposed on the people's representative by the people. Likewise, the treasury bench should not only give lip-service in inviting the opposition to Parliament. It is always a lot easier to govern when the opposition is not in Parliament. President John F Kennedy once said: "I feel comfortable when Congress is not in town." But the opposition's absence in Parliament may pose a danger to democracy.
Today the nation is divided between "us" and "them." If he is one of "us" -- no matter how incompetent or dishonest he may be -- he needs to be protected and promoted, whether he is in the city or in industry or in the bureaucracy, or holding any constitutional post. The word "we" is fast disappearing from our national life. This is suicidal for the society and for the country. The casualty is the millions of young men and women who are our future generation, and on whom depend our immediate and distant future.
There cannot be an Awami League Bangladesh, a BNP Bangladesh, a Jatiyo Party Bangladesh or a Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. There is only one Bangladesh: The People's Republic of Bangladesh, which belongs to 150 million Bangladeshis, irrespective of race, religion, creed or colour. Every citizen is entitled to equal opportunity and equal treatment. The party in power, the men and women in power, should be imbued with this political philosophy.
To expect this to happen in a divided nation is to "ask for the moon." But to make our independence meaningful, we need such a "moon." Someone should be courageous enough to begin the tough task of nation building. In a parliamentary democracy, the prime minister, who is the chief executive and who, according to Sir Ivor Jennings, "wields an authority that a Roman emperor might envy," is the right person to begin.
So let us wait for the day when the chief executive of the country will say: "Enough is enough. There will be no more division in Bangladesh. There will be no more humiliation to Bangladesh. The nation has stood up. Let us unite on common grounds."
On that day will begin the nation building. On that day our new generation's aspirations will begin to be fulfilled. On that day a bright young graduate, standing on the green grass of the Dhaka University compound, will look at the sky and say: "I can go as far as I can see."
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন