The challenges of time present

"Time past and Time Present", wrote T.S. Eliot, are one at time future. Whether this will be the case in Bangladesh is a trillion dollar question. For Bangladesh April 2014 is really another time. The past is gone, as it must. The elections are over. The national election, that is election to the parliament, the Jatiyo Sangsad ended in smoke screen, confusion, suspicion and lingering doubts about its credibility. In the face of determined opposition boycott and resolute resistance the nation was raven by strikes, blockades and violence. The opposition demand was for a neutral non-partisan poll-time government. The opposition did not care whether one called it 'interim' or 'caretaker' government. The ruling party was equally adamant. It would have no non-elected government during the polls. It urged that the constitution as amended in the light of relevant judgment from the highest court made it obligatory to hold elections under the interim government formed by the party in power. It also took clever steps and used the full force of coercive machinery of the state to hold the parliamentary elections on January 05 as scheduled. On account of opposition boycott, resistance and related violence and clash of security forces and protesters, candidates of the opposition did not put up a fight. In consequence, 154 ruling party candidates were elected uncontested as MPs. In the rest of the seats relatively small numbers of voters turned out. Even the ruling party claim did not exceed 40 per cent. Thus, the parliamentary polls remained politically suspect.
Nevertheless, legally and constitutionally, nobody could speak against the election. Critics at home and abroad at most called it immoral. The ruling party's strategies and tactics, however Machiavellian, seem to have worked. The parliamentary elections of January 05, 2014 in Bangladesh was a success for the party in power. One phase of the past thus ended. The foreign critics of the faulty elections, some major development partners, especially the USA and the European Union, continued their business as usual with the newly elected but substantially old government. Domestically part of the civil society and media continued to join the opposition's vehement denouncement of the 'hollow' polls. Nevertheless, the opposition parties, the principal one, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its 17 allies expressed their willingness to have dialogue with the government 'unfairly elected' and 'illegitimate'.
That was not all. As the government decided to stage the local self-government body upazila elections from February to March, the opposition BNP and its allies joined the elections. Though under the constitution local-level elections are deemed to be non-party polls, in actuality, the different parties have always backed the candidates in their electoral race. This time the party theme was even louder. The BNP-led opposition, shifting their strategy, took this as an opportunity to prove that it was more popular than the ruling party which, it alleged, had won the national elections by 'deceit and brute force'. If it could not clinch victory it could re-iterate its allegation that no election could be just and fair under an Awami League regime.
As everybody knows the upazila elections were held in five different phases from February 19 to March 31. The first two rounds went reasonably well without significant disorder and violence on part of either the ruling or opposition parties. In these two phases BNP did as it expected, own 96 seats of chairman  against Awami League's 81. In the third round, however, the ruling party became more alert and the scores were more even. In these three rounds an interesting feature was the relatively greater success of the Jamaat-backed candidates and finally they bagged 36 seats of chairman and 117 seats of vice-chairman. It should be remembered that the Jamaat had lost its registration with the Election Commission because of court decision. Since the Upazila elections are technically non-party affairs, there was nothing to prevent Jamaat-backed candidates to join the local-level elections.
Perhaps the ground situation alarmed the Awami League. In substance, it could not have mattered much even if the opposition won many more seats of upazila chairman and vice-chairman. It is widely known that under the new law as it stands after the 9th Parliament amended the ordinance of the 1/11 caretaker government relating to upazila, the power of the upazila chairman and council has been severely curtailed. The Awami League-dominated 9th Parliament made the local MP the virtual controller and guide of the upazila parishad. As advisor, the MPs are in the driving seat. Nothing can move without their advice which is mandatory. Nevertheless, defeat even under such a situation would have made the ruling party lose its face, if it were to be defeated in the upazila polls in greater number. That would have also cemented the doubts of credibility of the January 05 parliamentary polls.
The Awami League must have been aware of and sensitive to the adverse psychological impact of a defeat by a wide margin in local-level elections. There is thus grave suspicion that the violence, forcible occupation of a large number of polling centres and use of law and order machinery in its favour helped the party in power to win many more seats than the opposition in the last two rounds - Awami League 81, BNP 96, Jamaat 20. In totality, the final picture showed the Awami League in a dominant position. The final tally is: Awami League 232, BNP 162, Jamaat 36.
 'All is well that ends well', goes the old saying. In the upazila polls all ended well for the Awami League. The victory apparently gave renewed assurance of political peace and social tranquility. Such a setting is certainly encouraging for business, trade, enterprise and industry. The question is: along with the ruling party, did the nation win? Did the successfully completed upazila polls end well for the entire country? It did according to the leaders of the government party. Commerce Minister Tofail Ahmed said, businessmen had returned to their day-to-day business. But what kind of business they returned to? Everything seems to be well and quiet on the political front, at least for the ruling party and their allies. They are justifiably happy with their success in putting down the opposition both in the national and local elections.
The opposition, especially the BNP, seems to have received a body blow. Its leaders, though loudly protest against repression, human rights violation and harassment and promise wider and intense popular movement, are in apparent disarray. There is no doubt that the party is organisationally weak and unable to mobilise support for a strong movement in the streets. Its ally Jamaat-e-Islami is evidently cornered. It appears that the opposition, unless it finds new spirit and energy and adopt realistic and effective political strategies, will further weaken. This may create fragility in the moderate nationalist forces. Such a situation will not bode well for the political elements in power. Absence of effective opposition may lead to erosion of whatever democracy is still left in the country. It will also be a sad degeneration of an old democratic party, the Awami League, with a wide popular base.
Even more dangerous is the other scenario. Elective autocracy without strong and vibrant opposition may lead to the rise of extremism. Whether in the name of religion or non-religious dogmas the extremists may wreak havoc in our delicately balanced polity and fledgling economy. Despite its political underdevelopment, Bangladesh has been described by international and multilateral organisations as a land of promise. Its economic capability and potential have been praised by such organisation as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and HSBC. Despite repetition, it is worth noting what an international observer said: According to International Monetary Fund (IMF), "Bangladesh ranked as the 44th largest economy in the World in 2012 in PPP terms and 57th largest in nominal terms with a gross domestic product of US $ 306 billion in PPP terms and US $153.6 billion in nominal terms" Again, the 2012 projection of the HSBC said, "Bangladesh will be the World's 31st largest economy in 2050 when ranked by total gross domestic product (GDP) and 89th when ranked by GDP per capita. This is music to our ears".
Dreams are the stuff of development and progress. It is pleasing and re-assuring to know that others think well of us and are positive about our capacity and potentials. But when we think of what disaster can be caused by political conflict and turmoil, we cannot but be uncertain, even terrified, of our dim economic possibilities. If our politics cannot become orderly and elections credible April 2014 may finally contribute to the degeneration of our economy. In the future, we may find ourselves in great economic trouble, because of troubled politics. Then calm and promising as it does April may prove, in the words of T.S. Eliot, 'the cruelest month' for us in the future.
Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelley, founder Chairman of Centre for Development Research, Bangladesh (CDRB) and Editor quarterly "Asian Affairs", is a former teacher of political science in Dhaka University and former member of the erstwhile Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) and former non-partisan technocrat Cabinet                    Minister of Bangladesh. [email protected]