|Home - Back Issues - The Team - Contact Us|
|Volume 11 |Issue 23| June 08, 2012 ||
The reason any government appoints a person to the position of minister, or half, or chairman of an autonomous body, head or member of a vital commission, or that of a board of a bank, director-general of a directorate, vice-chancellor of a university, or pro-VC, and such other much-sought-after primarily politically-blessed posts, is to needen pokkhe enhance the image of the government and, if possible, to garner a few more votes in the next association, local and national elections.
Alas! There could be sand in the molasses (read gur-e baali) if the selection of the appointees is based on discriminatory campaigning by self-seeking flies around the same brown treacle to favour an unfit candidate, colleague or classmate – i.e. CCC (read chee, chee, chee).
That has indeed been the case in several incumbent and past appointments. The result has always been the severe tarnishing of the government and the ruling party's position in the eye of the general public, who are also known as voters. The above outcome would be true for any government, not necessarily only for the present.
You may (or may not) have also noticed an uncanny, continuous and cyclic, extremely harmful and viral relationship and understanding among the unqualified opportunists, supposed supporters of different major political parties at that cesspool of non-ideology; and they do religiously maintain a 'you-support-me-during-your-regime-and-I-will-support-you-during-mine' status for their mutual benefit. If anything, that sort of unholy private alliance among incompetent individuals is nurtured at a great loss and at the cost of the country's natural progress. At best we have been and are being served by below-average material at some important areas and avenues under all shades of governance.
The recent acrimony at Jahangirnagar University and BUET are just two instances of how a government can be put on the back-foot by the inability of their chosen persons. While they may resort to gauche manoeuvres to wriggle out of their spot, the inevitability is that the highest office takes no time to comprehend that a wrong person was promoted by the “trusted advisors”.
In truth, no political government can afford such detrimental and wounding appointees at strategic positions because these negatively impact the very core of the party, deflate the moral of grassroots workers, and turn away popular support; whereas the same appointments were intended to be a government's investment for another term. There is some redemption of the government's image @ at which these agacha are removed.
How does any government end up with making such poor judgement in selecting the wrong people to such vital assignments? Well, to put the record straight, the government is rarely blamed; it is always the prime minister who is singled out as having taken a wrong decision. But, in reality, is it possible for the PM to know every possible hopeful for every post in every sector? It is natural and scientific that the PM would depend on some “advisors” who are more conversant with the office in question and aware of the (dis-)qualification of the possible aspirants to a post. It is these advisors, who sadly are misguiding the office of the PM time and again.
The first obvious question would be: Who are these advisors? They would be regulars at the party office, who have earned the trust of the party chief and those at the head table by their proven loyalty, especially when a party is out of power.
The next obvious question would be: Why would partisan advisors intentionally do something to harm their party and their government? The answer lies in the lines above, but more explicitly, when a government is being formed or shortly after, if called by the highest office to propose names for posts in institutions in their areas of expertise and known interest, the advisors (be it in education, health, sports, culture…) gauge how much they can profit (be it politically, monetarily, or merely to settle an old score) from their given role, sitting as they are on a casting couch. And so they end up often, not always, putting on the table of the highest office names of those persons who shall be at their beck and call, and who will aid them in their dishonest undertakings, if any, although they are fully aware that those very persons are absolutely unfit for the job, and there indeed are better and qualified candidates who are equally, if not more, dedicated to the party and the nation.
To add salt to the wound suffered by the people, the appointed so-called party-man hardly ever considers the gifted job as a blessed assignment. Once the gazette is out, the appointed person assumes an “I who” attitude, and commences to take decisions that are wrong, prejudiced, unlawful, unpopular… take your pick. They are all vote losers, and extremely damaging for the party that brought them to the chair. Their immaturity is manifested by their foolish belief that their term is endless.
This week's penning is in hoping and praying that in days forthcoming there shall not be any repeating of such narrow-minded backing of any egocentric weakling.
Copyright (R) thedailystar.net 2012