Non-Drama And Drama In Bangladesh Politics

Absence of theatrical elements has failed to produce political dramas in Bangladesh politics. Resemblance to drama is not staging of it. Dramatic actors are absent. And, drama is there in another sphere of politics in Bangladesh. Actors are there.

Making alliance and breaking of it and reenacting of it are not drama. Not even part of drama. These are regular parts of vibrant politics and are as old as politics. And these signify a few characteristics of a politics. Often, a few limits and possibilities are signified by these. Sometimes not forming alliances and not making about faces appear drama.

Novices in politics only turn dumb as they encounter moves, counter-moves and about turns, which are regular features.

Forget politics. What happens in business? What happens in the world of finance and banking? What happened in the days of emerging coal, iron and bank giants? Don’t competitors join hands? History of business organizations provides the answers. Recollect the emergence of monopolies and cartels. Does politics defy this business rule if the politics is related to the business?

Imperial courts turned lively and tense with changing alliances and allegiance. Empires in the east and west were full with this politics. Conspiracies and coteries were in company of prevailing politics.

For the time being put aside present Bangladesh political incidents, some may like to tag these as mal-incidents, and recollect formation, breaking and re-formation of political alliances in the colonial days of our subcontinent, pre-1947 Bengal, post-1947 East Bengal (Bangladesh), in post-1971 Pakistan, in post-Indira-emergency India. Even, what about the factions within some of the political parties in those periods? One faction was fighting another, and making understanding the next day. What happens in many other countries? What happens in the voting pattern of legislative assemblies that are not ruled by central command? Shifts and displacements are always active. The political force that supported the Pakistan army in 1971 is now denouncing it.

This is a regular part and pattern of political game. Circumstances, essentially interests determine the path of alliance. Somersault is one of many political acts and a turncoat to one is a friend to other.

Alliances or one may term it as friendship, although friendship actually carries deeper meaning, are formed and broken and re-formed among social classes and factions of these classes also. This is also regular part of politics. Politics losses vibrancy if it turns static enough that disallows it to form and re-form alliances.

Former president Ershad-led Jatio Party (JP-E) leaving Awami League (AL)-led Grand Alliance, announcing plan to form a new alliance, indicating plan to boycott planned national election, then joining AL-led poll-time government to facilitate national election, all happened within days and even within hours, should not make one astonished.

There are similar other acts and speed of acts by other actors also. Similar acts in similar speed by other actors in future should not astonish an observer. A politician sits on horse for hours waiting to make a charge at the opportune moment.

The speed of the events and announcements is not astonishing as circumstances change, sometimes, within hours. It’s a character of a politics.

In politics, incidents move not in regular fashion. These, depending on circumstance, move slowly, and also swiftly.

Drama in Bangladesh politics is elsewhere. It’s with political actors posing non-political initiators.

A situation turns dramatic when a class or classes chart a path that ultimately goes against its interests. A situation turns dramatic when an actor, confident with power, manipulation capacity, image and appeal, finds himself in a tight corner. A situation turns dramatic when an actor confident about self as non-controversial mediator turns controversial. A situation turns dramatic when interferences are made but assurances of non-interference are delivered. A situation turns dramatic when mainstream political parties and public leaders depend on external advices. The drama reaches to its climax when the scene is set in context of a class reality.

Bangladesh found all these: diplomats from a number of countries negotiating and suggesting political leaders, seemingly suggesting the Bangladesh people, diplomats visiting Bangladesh, getting engaged with the issue of the next national election, suggesting to initiate dialogue between political leaders as if the Bangladesh political leaders don’t know the effectiveness and method of dialogue although most of these leaders are in political life for decades and they participated in elections more than once.

Press reports carry the names and describe the acts of interference. These dramas happen in front of a people who had the audacity to defy maharajas of the world system while the people initiated their war for liberation in 1971.

All the acts, advising, etc., have root, and the root is in the class reality, and the class reality is composed of competing classes and factions within the classes, and failure to reach a settlement.

The people of Bangladesh had an experience with the United States in 1971. The super power sent its Seventh Fleet towards the Bay of Bengal while victory was within reach of the valiant people. That was in December 1971. The people made a win and the fleet had to retreat. The super power extended full support to Pakistan while the people were waging their armed liberation struggle against Pakistan. The super power’s role is still not a sweet memory to the people.

But the drama is personalities involved with politics still depend on the super power for political existence. What will happen when the people will turn aware of the game and the players? Personalities involved with politics don’t take this aspect into consideration, rather flaunt the friendship. It’s a political drama. People learn, and people learn through incidents, experiences, debates. Someone will expose the aspect to the people. People ultimately reject personalities with external allegiance.

External interference in Bangladesh politics turned starkly visible in the 1980s. But it was not criticized by the mainstream political parties at that time. Only a few individuals voicing pro-people forces were raising the issue.

But now, a section of the mainstream Bangladesh politics publicly names name, criticizes diplomat. Sometimes satire is made with name. The mainstream Bangladesh press carries these reports. How far it will affect career of the diplomat is another issue as turning controversial narrows down mediating space and touches image. But naming name by the mainstream Bangladesh politics is a new development. One can consider it as a drama as to be critical of world power is not a regular feature of mainstream politics.

Two politics are running parallel in the present day Bangladesh: Of the mainstream with political demands, and of the working people with economic demands. The number of life lost in these two is different. The number is far higher in the mainstream politics although agitation of the working people, now the garments workers, is more intensive, wide, prolonged, although agitation by the later is mostly closer to luddite type, anarchism and vandalism: pelting of stones at factories, ignite fire, vandalism with public and private transport, which are not at all connected with organized labor movement, and which ultimately harm the movement, and which are facilitated to subvert rise of organized, aware labor movement.

The way ordinary persons died during the mainstream political agitation is unparallel in contemporary Bangladesh politics. Many of the ordinary persons were burned to death, not by police firing. Most of the dead were poor, working people, members of lower-middle or middle-middle class. To call it a drama will be a cruel, inhuman expression. It’s toll indifferently charged by the mainstream politics.

Non-heroes are sold as heroes by the mainstream Bangladesh politics. Profit at unprecedented level in the society goes unquestioned in the politics. The Bangladesh people know these, know the names, and yet they are swayed by the mainstream propaganda. This is the drama, a drama enacted efficiently.

Efficiency in incapacities of the mainstream Bangladesh politics is the drama. It’s evolving and resorting to complex moves that are not dug by quarters appearing interested. This is the drama. Stream other than the mainstream politics follows the main. The drama is there as it’s the mainstream’s efficiency to pull along its opposing political force although it fails to always pull all its class friends.

These dramas and non-dramas in the Bangladesh mainstream politics are characteristic of the state of the society. These will follow their courses till people initiate their politics and nullify the acts of making wrongs right. Populist moves give people space required to initiate their politics while denying space for progress exposes backward politics that creates background for rejecting it.