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.
