The quest for a credible election—\\\'hardliners\\\' scuttling prospect!

The nation is unquestionably getting itself increasingly enmeshed in developments that are causing political uncertainty of a serious proportion. And in the process of this, chances of a way-out from the current imbroglio are becoming slimmer, being made difficult by the "hardliners" on both sides of the fence. This is really the most unfortunate aspect of the country's current of the polity.
While wisdom, tolerance and sagacity are the requirements at this critical juncture to overcome the crisis, provocative and overzealous comments by some figures in both government and the opposition are simply queering the pitch, concerning chances of a settlement. It is somewhat puzzling to fathom the intentions of such people or quarters for their intriguing stances. But one thing remains, at least, clear: they want to complicate matters. This is illustrated by the arrests by the government of some senior leaders of the main opposition party, on the one side, and the extension of the period of 'hartal' (general strike) by the 18-party opposition alliance, on the other. This could be either for their own agenda of pushing their respective leaders to a troubled situation with no honest desire or acting as part of any greater "agenda". In any case, such quarters, as it seems to be the case, may be seeking to fish in the troubled waters and playing a "notorious" role at this critically important period of Bangladesh.
In this context, some avoidable decisions -- the calling of another spell of long "hartal" and the arrest of several key persons of the opposition -- are only causing the volatile condition, now prevailing in the country, to turn from bad to worse. Indeed, it is a sad spectacle for a nation that attained its independence at a high cost and traversed more than four decades - albeit not smoothly - without facing a situation like that of the current phase.
The flicker of hope that was generated by the opportunity of holding a dialogue between the top leaders of two sides has most unfortunately turned into a bitter and unexpected cycle of mutual accusations and demonstration of venom, and also a bitter debate over which leader got the "upper hand" over the other. While their small segments of followers are upbeat to flaunt the success of their respective leader, the overwhelming majority of the people are frustrated, clearly crestfallen by the development.
However, this poignant outcome of the much hyped Hasina-Khaleda telephonic conversation must not be used as a ploy to prevent future discussions - which interested quarters would like to see taking place - because of their own strategic ends. Here, expectations from both leaders are that they would play a role which is befitting the present state of the crisis that the country is faced with. After all, history would not pardon anyone - howsoever big someone is - for wrong decisions at a critically important time.
At the heart of the problem is the main issue of a credible election, which is the desire of entire nation as well as other countries, who care about having true democratic credentials of an elected government. The crux of the problem is: under which form of government the next polls should take place. Many are inclined to consider this as more a political problem than a constitutional crisis since the change has been made somewhat unexpectedly from the hitherto practised system.
The Westminster system of democracy has its own charm and countries like India, Britain and Canada have been able to evolve the pattern of staging polls under the authority of the incumbent government since none questions the fairness of the voting there. Their democratic institutions have properly been strengthened to the extent of allaying fears of any unfairness, being taken recourse to, in polls.
But in countries where the democracy has either been a relatively new phenomenon or it has intermittently been obstructed by various means, people are yet to develop their confidence in the system. Hence, several countries in the south Asian region have either gone for a non-partisan poll-time government or clamouring for it. Incidentally, in our country the key issues, particularly the institutional ones, are seldom seen on the basis of merit and this is also a major problem for failure to arrive at a broad consensus on some fundamental matters.
Each issue has its own reasons for acceptance or rejection, and it is imperative to consider them separately. It is generally believed that while most people tend to believe that the present government has, by and large, accomplished some commendable tasks on such areas like holding of the trial of war criminals or developments in some fields, the feeling on the issue of balloting is that Bangladesh, at least for some more time, needs national elections under a fool-proof non-biased authority. It does not mean that poll-time government has to be exactly the same as that suggested by the main opposition party. But the bottom line is that it cannot have influence of the ruling circles. It is possible to find out something along this line, provided the goodwill is there. For, the nation cannot be kept hostage to the whims of the individuals as people stand resolutely in favour of peace, stability and a meaningful election.
The cycle of violence must stop and the uncertainty over credible polls must not linger on. Shouldn't the key figures across the political divide shed intransigence and heed to the need of the hour?   The future would definitely provide the opportunity to judge who played what positive or negative role in nation's bad times, in a dispassionate way. Hopefully, our leaders will not forget this lesson of history. They also need to hold the overenthusiastic associates, who are evidently trying to scuttle the prospects of good times, at arm's length for the larger good of not only the people, but also for themselves.
   ([email protected])