Leaf Through A Few Old Pages On Bangladesh Politics

A charged Bangladesh mainstream politics now finds flowing blood everyday as the politics is delivering deaths daily. Common persons – public transport drivers, day laborers, low salaried employees, and similar “insignificant” citizens – are being burned to death. The acts reaffirm mainstream’s monopolization of violence.

Deaths of children, young and middle aged persons, mainly burned to death, now overwhelm mass psyche today. Dhaka press carries the numbers daily. It’s a mainstream politics that now finds violence as the main form of political struggle! It’s a mainstream political struggle that hurts the common persons, their life and their bread! Liberty, as it appears, is a pipe dream to the commoners now. Should one despise? Should one lament? Future bears the answer.

None claims responsibility of this sort of political action – spraying of petrol on humans and setting them on fire, and similar acts – and the actors are mysteriously cloaked. The common people don’t know the real political actors as they go unexposed. And, the mainstream’s common people-killing-political struggle, a variety of lynching, roars on.

It’s a politics, and the politics is of the mainstream as no contending class is now wrestling political power. The contending classes have been effectively demobilized and depoliticized long ago. Instead, the ruling elites with all its factions are engaged with itself. It’s a scrap within the same segment that dominates the society.

Its acts create controversy within its system and question the system. The controversy ranges from legislative assembly to court of law to administration, and contravenes all limits of humanity as the deaths declare.

One can leaf through a few old pages to have a hunch of today’s mainstream politics.

An article in Aneek, a Bangla monthly from India, said in June 2001: It will not be strange if the caretaker government system [a poll-time arrangement] turns controversial. Factions of the ruling segments are resorting to violence and blaming each other. Another general election will complicate the situation instead of improving it. (Sadek Rashid, “Bangladesh: the perspective of election”)

Another article in the same monthly said in August 2001: Accusation of election rigging shall not cease as efforts for unity of the ruling factions will fail until a force is used. (Sadek Rashid, “Bangladesh election”)

This reality has not changed since the statements were made about 12 years ago. So, Bangladesh people find them in a despicable and savage situation.

The controversy

Controversy with the form of poll-time government is not only alive; it has compounded with fundamental questions coming to the fore. Now, the debate is: whether a non-party caretaker government or an all-party government will preside over the poll-period? Other issues have joined the debate. From both ends, credibility is at stake. Ultimately, it’s the credibility of organs of a ruling machine, and of the factions of the ruling segment.

In the last days of 1990, immediately after the fall of Ershad regime, the controversy on the issue of caretaker form of government was not in the imagination of the mainstream politics although seeds of the controversy were there.

Now, not only the form of poll time government, but also institutions of the state and principles of governance are pulled into the controversy that constantly questions credibility of a number of instruments of the ruling machine, which in turn also questions acceptability of these. It’s not the classes opposed to the mainstream, but the competing factions of the ruling elites that are raising the controversy and questions, and thus eroding acceptability of institutions and organs of the state. A “strange” act!

It’s a political fight. It’s quite natural. One should not expect an overnight resolution of all political questions as the issue is control over resources.

But the form the political fight takes harms the class rule as institutions of the state are being questioned and ignored by none other than the same class interests, which fail to find a common forum and peaceful form instead of resorting to force, an antagonistic approach, and a political practice that ultimately hurts the common people, and thus sows reasons for alienating the common people. It’s a limitation of the ruling elites irrespective of factions.

Politics of the dominating segment imposes the limitation. Inviting and accommodating of and relying on external interference with variance in level and form are a manifestation of this limitation.

Interference

Moving back to another old page again:

An article in Sanskriti, a Bangla monthly from Dhaka, said in September 1991: The Bangladesh ruling elites shall increasingly rely on external masters with the exposure of their incapacities and incompetence and decline in their credibility.

The observation was made more than 20 years ago.

Now, the reliance has increased as has increased the interference. Sometimes, it’s in a crude and vulgar appearance. Sometimes, it goes to the limit of hurting dignity and honor of a people.

But changes are appearing in the broader society that even factions of the dominating segment can’t ignore. Contradictions are bringing in the changes.

Now

The last few weeks have found articles in Dhaka dailies and online news daily, at least three in number, discussing US role in Bangladesh politics. Tone of these discussions was critical. A few observations and comments were not soft. To some readers, a few of the comments may sound caustic. These came out from mainstream pens.

The articles, in Bangla, discussed working of lobby in US political system, and media, and the style of influencing and manipulating in the system. At least one of the articles discussed, in brief, the working of committees and sub-committees of the US Congress. At least two of the articles discussed a recent hearing on Bangladesh in a sub-committee. There are information, and a tone of criticism in these articles.

At least one of the articles pointed out a Congress member, who recently visited Bangladesh, and identified him as a lobbyist. The tone was not soft.

At least one article mentioned, with not a sweet tone, the US ambassador in Dhaka. A responsible discussant belonging to a mainstream political party made satirical comment, in a panel discussion/dialogue sponsored by an international news outlet, with a foreign diplomat. In the mainstream, this was unimaginable only a few months ago. It’s not a regular experience in this region also.

One report in a Bangla online daily mentioned the ambassador was trying for a long time to have audience with the prime minister. This, a long wait to have the PM’s audience by the ambassador, if factual, is a new development in Bangladesh political scene.

In the mainstream, this tone was absent in the 1980s and ’90s. Now, a critical tone is being heard. All political visitors, mediators or lobbyists, now don’t have an easy ride in Bangladesh. Lobby, committee, etc., and their functioning are now discussed. The information is reaching a section of readers, a part of the people.

Marketing of everything political is not now an easy job in Bangladesh society. Shall this diminish? Or, shall it spread more? The information already presented by a section of the mainstream will reach wider Bangladesh society as conflicting interests will widen its spread. This carries impact.

Further exposure by a part of the mainstream will not be an act of astonishment. Circumstance in future may push a part of the mainstream to expose names of lobbyists, contracts, the amount of money involved, techniques of manipulation with information and presentation of facts, propaganda style. The exposure, if it happens, can be cited as a gift from the mainstream to the political forces outside the mainstream.

This is part of political education of people that helps people understand everything is not black and white and all are not holy souls and many deals are driven by petty interests and many personalities and pronouncements are not as sacred as they appear and the sound they make. Elites like to ignore this process. An exercise with elitist politico-historical “blindness”!

Not a cycle

This controversy and conflict shall continue as the contradictions within the dominating sphere still go unresolved. These are getting intensified, and the intensification is manifested in the form and style of political struggle the competing ruling interests/factions carry on. There are, no doubt, causes, material, which not only keep these unresolved, but also escalate these.

But the factional fight among the elites shall not move in a cyclic form, election-boycott-election or violence-temporary tranquility-violence, as changes entering the scene with further developments in the society will push for new equation between the dominating interests. A politically aware people, a people mobilized politically, a people with its own leadership shall shatter silence of death and change the entire political scene soaked with blood of common persons.

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.