The demand for a fresh poll has taken a dramatic turn in our politics. The opposition is constantly demanding a fresh poll that will ensure fair and spontaneous participation of all parities. But the question is: why do we need a fresh poll? What kinds of factors have led the opposition to demand a fresh poll? Is it simply a political demand or a demand for restoring good democratic practice?
As far as the former is concerned, we do not need a fresh poll that will do nothing except changing the leading role. As for the latter, we can give an affirmative answer: yes, we need a fresh poll. The main thing that grips our mind is whether a fresh poll will change the situation of our country or it will simply be an instrument to grab the power so that destruction can be carried out further by another party. We are still in suspension and have not got the answer yet.
Though it is admitted that the incumbent government did not take over through a fair election in which all parties participated willingly, the displacement of such government from the leading is not a solution that the nation really awaits, and desire for. People need changes and new promises that will bring new hopes overcoming the existing hurdles. But have we been assured of such by the opposition yet? This is a matter of despair.
We are not seeing any blink of light in this respect, and all we are observing are clashes, and destruction. How long we have to see such mayhem in our country? We choose such leaders for our country who, instead of protecting us, are busy taking away our life and happiness. They are building this country as a workshop where deaths come out as finished products.
Moreover, the politics in our country is historically based on the game of retaliation. The two major parties - Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) - have been playing this game for years. They use retaliatory strategy as the trump card in politics. By playing the game of retaliation, they are pushing themselves to the extreme end of the political continuum. If they do not restrain themselves from such retaliatory practices, no solution will come out. What will come out is political instability.
The two parties should take it into consideration that the game of retaliation is the real culprit for our country and our political stability. It does not possess any solution. What it possesses is anarchy, disorder, instability and chaos.
Let us build a model for the game of retaliation that will, at least, show convincingly why the political parties should forsake the game of retaliation -- the game of destructive politics -- and forge toward constructive politics. To build a systematic analysis, let us assume that there are two parties called A and B who play the game 'retaliation'.
They play the game of retaliation in this way. When A takes over, A starts playing the game of retaliation and when B takes over, B plays the game of retaliation. We also assume when A is in the opposition and B is in the leading role, both simultaneously play the game of retaliation though the leading party dominates. So is true when B is in the leading role and A is in the opposition. We further assume that leading and opposition roles alternate between A and B; if A leads at time t then B will lead at time t+1 where the duration of time is five years. With such preliminaries, we can set out the following analysis for the game of retaliation that A and B play:.
In the above figure retaliation level of A on B (RA) is the measure on the horizontal axis and retaliation of B on A (RB) is measured on the vertical axis. The graph shows that as the level of retaliation A at time t-1 time increases, retaliation level of B at time t increases. When the level of retaliation of A is RA, the level of retaliation of B is RB. Since B will retaliate on A at time t observing A's retaliation on B at time t-1 when B was the opposition and A was the leading party, so will do A at time t+1 when A will be in the leading role as the leading role alternate after five years between them. Therefore, at time t+1, A will retaliate on B up to RA1. Observing A's retaliation RA1 at time t+1, B will retaliate up to RB1 at time t+2. This will continue until both reache a maximum boundary for retaliation beyond which they can't play the mutual game of retaliation. So, until both parties reach the solution (RA*, RB*) as shown the above graph, they will play the game of retaliation in the following way:
The question is: how long can they go like this? We answer that not far enough because there is a limit or maximum boundary of retaliation that a party can impose on another party. The graph shows that the maximum level of retaliation that A can impose on B is RA*, and the maximum level of retaliation that B can impose on A is RB*.
What happens when both reach the maximum level of retaliation or touch the maximum boundary of retaliation? This is the most important question to answer here. The answer is -- each one will start acting like an autocrat. They will no longer be willing to play the mutual game of retaliation. Instead, both will try to keep themselves in power acting like an autocrat. This is the brutal outcome of the game of retaliation. By playing the mutual game of retaliation, they spoil themselves and push themselves to the point of autocratic regime. Why do they behave like autocrats reaching the maximum boundary of retaliation? They become autocrat to defend themselves from their foes and enemies where the foes and enemies are none but themselves.
When B reaches the maximum level of retaliation, B will start acting like an autocrat and will try do whatever it can to keep itself in the power. Similarly, when A reaches the maximum level, A will start acting like an autocrat and do whatever it can to keep itself in power.
If we resemble this theoretical analysis with our political scenario, we find the confirmation for such explanation. The present political deadlock is due to the game of retaliation. But the matter of concern is that the game of retaliation is still active. The political parties being myopic are playing this game in an unbridled manner. The game of retaliation is like a ticking bomb whose consequence will be dire if it explodes to its full blast. The symptom of being exploded is clearly manifested by the present political instability.
Now we can answer our prime question: what is the way out of the present political instability? Our answer is that to ensure political stability, we do not need fresh poll necessarily. It is not a solution to the problem nor a whole cure. The first and foremost task for the political parties is to get themselves rid of the game of retaliation. If they do, then we will have whatever we need to ensure political stability in our country.
Once this condition is satisfied, a fresh poll will be held as a result. Therefore, the demand for fresh poll is justified but not what we are aiming at. We want political stability, not only fresh poll. There is no guarantee that fresh poll will ensure political stability as long as the game of retaliation remains active.
Political parties have to change the outlook towards the politics and renounce the game of retaliation. Only this commitment can promise us a hope for democracy. Otherwise, what will come out is totally horrendous and horrific. We fear the game of retaliation will gradually push further to the point of dictatorship, and political parties being unconcerned and without knowing the consequences of the game, are playing it as an ordinary game. But the game of retaliation is deceptively simple and confusing. It is more than enough to shatter our democratic spine.
The writer is faculty member, School of Business, North South University. [email protected]
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
