Apparently, Bangladesh's current political impasse is showing no sign of a breakthrough although some positive signals are, of late, discernible as the two warring sides are now engaged in a dialogue, in quest of a resolution of the crisis. However, many might incline to believe that it is quite late since the process that has been set into motion about the January 5 national elections appear to be somewhat irreversible.
By this time, an unbelievably large number of the candidates have been elected unopposed, setting a "record" for any Westminster type of democracy. Without taking any side in the current imbroglio, one can safely conclude that it is a "farce" in the name of elections that has few parallels in the history of representative governments.
The "February 15" parliamentary polls under the rule of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) had earlier "gifted" the nation a stigma in the name of democracy and now the Awami League (AL) has come out with a bigger "glory" in its avowed desire for a "credible" voting. What a joke indeed!
On both occasions, the constitution was cited as the reason for going ahead with the voter-less polling. Sadly, the architects of all these "schemes" know very well that the "constitution" is being used as a pretext for what they are hell-bent upon achieving for narrow political and personal interests. In the process, they are only contributing to making Bangladesh a laughing stock in the eye of the international community, particularly the democratic world.
Bangladesh is undeniably in the midst of a deepening political crisis that unfortunately remains intractable even though optimism exists -- somewhat paradoxically -- about an eventual settlement of the imbroglio. The basis of this "optimism" is a catchword "Dialogue"(Sanglap), which most people of the country seem to favour for a solution to one of its most serious political problems since Independence.
In fact, many see the current confrontational politics mainly centering on under which government the next general elections will take place, is at the root of the gravest crisis of this nature that the country is faced with till date.
What is worse, no light is visible at the end of the tunnel. But a glimmer of hope still exists on a possible settlement of the crisis if the government and the opposition shed their stubbornness and intransigence and reach common ground on the key issue -- under which authority the polls will be held. Some adjustments in their positions may make a settlement possible.
But to turn this flicker of hope into a reality, the dialogue is necessary; it is heartening to see that efforts have been intensified at the international and lately, also at the national, levels for a resolution of the stalemate. Nothing concrete has transpired until the time of writing of this column on the much expected government-opposition parleys, albeit talks being underway between two sides. At least this is a forward movement, thanks to the efforts of the UN and other quarters that put emphasis on holding credible polls in Bangladesh.
The "Dialogue" is often seen as a catalyst in resolving complicated national and international issues. It is in this context that the need for talks is increasingly receiving importance in the realm of politics now in Bangladesh.
The "shut-down" crisis in the most politically, economically and militarily powerful country like the United States had caused so much of alarm all round -- more in that country itself -- that all were worried about the shape of things to come and president Barack Obama had to postpone his scheduled trips to several countries. A settlement of the crisis was finally found, though after much foot-dragging. But contacts between the administration and the opponents in the Congress were helpful to overcome the perilous condition. Even though the ruling Democrats and the opposition Republicans in the USA stuck to their guns, leading to the stand-off, finally none really could afford to be unbending as the public commotion grew over their positions. Such instances are galore elsewhere, too, about resolving national crises that stem from complications, but in most such cases, all concerned want a resolution because of much larger good.
Internationally, the condition is little difficult since it is not the national issues which come to the fore, but countries or sides that make talks difficult when they seek to consider things strictly from their respective national interest. This is evident from the Palestinian, Syrian or the "Kashmir" tangles. Nevertheless, an impending American military assault on Syria could be averted at the last minute due to the US-Russia discussions, main backers of two conflicting sides in the Syrian civil war. The accord on elimination of the chemical weapons of president Bashar al-Assad regime came only through a painstaking process of dialogue. None really knew where things would have gone if the US military intervention in Syria would have been there. It is the "Dialogue" that made it possible, despite the existence of the hardliners in the Obama administration and among the American allies. The moderate and saner sections did finally prevail upon all others, much to the appreciation and relief of the world. The deal on the nuclear issue of Iran was also clinched after hard endeavours, much to the dismay of the hardliners.
Nearer to home in South Asia, talks in settling international issues have made both headways and also resulted in useless outcome, at times. The Maoists insurgency in Nepal could not be settled through talks since an armed rebellion was involved there. But the main political parties, despite unusual political instability, finally reached understanding for elections under a "caretaker" government. The political situation in Nepal spawned tremendous losses, but the politicians had to opt for a solution since things were going nowhere. That the polls failed to produce a clear winner is a different matter.
Earlier, the intractable Tamil issue in Sri Lanka was discussed by the government and insurgent leaders for a solution at several rounds of talks outside the country that practically yielded no positive result because of intransigence on the part of both sides. But here once again, the prolonged armed struggle was an issue that made things too hard to crack. In Bangladesh too, the street violence is no answer to a settlement.
In democracies, it is the high expectation of the people both in and outside the country that any political crisis can be settled through talks that help unravelling even the "Gordian knot". Indian political parties fight bitterly in elections but never create anxiety or uncertainty over the polls.
National crises are settled when main political parties give precedence to parleys as the effective means of sorting out differences of their views. In Pakistan, where democracy remains a kind of "mirage", this time a commendable scene was witnessed when the opposition allowed the government to complete its term without any disturbance. In turn, the government also agreed for the voting under a non-partisan government. In the population-wise smallest SAARC nation -- the Maldives -- the nascent democracy was threatened. Nonetheless, the country managed to hold an elections, participated by all quarters, and the unrest has largely settled down.
The Bangladesh scenario is known to all as each and every day passes amid swelling of public concerns now about the shape of things to come in the near future unless a solution to the deteriorating situation is found. Country's foreign friends including the world body like the UN are concerned since the economic and social progress of a developing nation is set to be badly shaken by the kind of a political situation that is now prevailing in Bangladesh. Their anxiety stems from their having good wishes for Bangladesh. A man on the street in Bangladesh echoes such a concern.
Is it not the high time for the key players of country's political spectrum to demonstrate sagacity and political wisdom by placing national interest above partisan or narrow selfish or individual ones? Sincerity and goodwill are enough for a breakthrough and other relevant matters can then easily be adjusted, provided such values are upheld.
The reality is that the main source of hope for finding out a solution to the current impasse is undeniably the prime minister, whose decisions are pivotal. History provides opportunities to her to play a wise and dedicated role at this critical juncture. Would she then respond to this call now? The prime minister has accomplished many commendable tasks and, above all, she is the daughter of country's founding leader. Can she do it and thereby contribute to imprinting her name with enormous glory in history? ([email protected])
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
