Debate policies, not personalities

A dangerous trend has developed over a long period: major political parties in our country are busy fighting over personalities. Worst still, the most debated personalities are the two deceased presidents of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman. Both were great personalities and made distinct contributions. They were unique individuals and played unique roles. To seek to compare the two is to attempt to mix water and oil to see which is better. Late President Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had outstanding oratory skills. He had successfully captured the mood of the nation and inspired them to fight for freedom. Ziaur Rahman rose to the challenge in his capacity as a skilled solider and played vital role in shaping war strategy of the armed conflict for freedom. Both contributions are great in their own ways and were the best in their individual capacity. Later, Ziaur Rahman rose to power to lead the nation while Bangabandhu was brutally killed. As president, Zia brought stability and offered optimism to a nation which was vulnerable and unsure of its existence. Credit goes to him that he moved Bangladesh from a country yet to consolidate its presence to one which was an emerging tiger. He succeeded not only in the domestic front, but internationally his foreign policy was a major success. He, too, sadly faced his demise at the hands of his comrades in the armed forces who brutally killed him to end his short tenure. The decent people of Bangladesh had hoped that the two dominating parties and their leaders would be united in grief. For one lost her beloved father, while the other her spouse. And the sadness and sorrow which they were made to suffer should have resulted in sympathy for one another and the ability to join hands for the common good of the nation. But unfortunately, we see them turned into arch rivals, so much so that their followers, keen on pleasing their leaders, will disparage the deceased leaders of their opposing sides without compunction. However, it must be noted that despite the ever declining and much worsening political culture, the popularity of politics and policies of these two parties have not waned perhaps, because the people see no credible alternative. But for me, it is because we as a nation lack the capacity to appreciate the importance and in fact yet to be convinced of the possibility that good debate can take place around policies without mud slinging, bad mouthing and straight cut swearing at one another. We as a nation is yet to learn the art of debating our past to inspire a better future. I am of course aware that my writings are of little importance unless opportunities for progress are created. But I am mindful too that change starts from one, then two and it multiplies. A better and more cultured debate on the past, present and future of our country is desired by the majority. For we as a nation has always been composed, polite and respectful. Our community can therefore never adopt swearing, shouting and muscle flexing as the norm of debating. In the same spirit that our people refrain from being violent and rude in their personal conduct with their colleagues and fellow citizens, we can create a culture of respect and understanding in politics. We can and must find ways to encourage healthy debate on policies and avoid personalities. And the media needs to be the first to change. One obvious way that this can happen is for media to stop or significantly reduce reporting abuses exchanged between our politicians. The brave outlets can move one step further to adopt tones along such line as, "We lost out on an opportunity to debate the future of our Education system as the parliamentarians wasted their time exchanging slang, swears and rude comments. They spoke in manners contrary to the finest traditions of our society and culture." Of course this will be a gamble, but a risk worth taking. It will ensure that the readers of the papers are saved from reading the rubbish of the political thugs. On a broader point, when newspapers and media outlets stop reporting abuses and focus on policies, it will provide an opportunity for readers, viewers and observers to think creatively and critically about policies. This in turn will reduce some of the pollution of our political arena. It will promote intellectual and informed debate inspired by patriotism. That way we will debate to agree what's best for the future of our nation and allow our deceased leaders rest in peace. The writer is a Barrister and community activist, and can be reached at e-mail: talha.j.ahmad@gmail.com