The issue acquires relevance in that there are some untold stories relating to politics during mid-eighties. It is also relevant in the context of the continued efforts to form a united alliance of opposition parties against the ruling party, a common platform as it is sometimes called. The Leader of the Opposition confirmed her party's willingness to have 'a broad platform to unleash people power'. That she is hoping to reenact what had happened during the late nineties that eventually forced Ershad to quit seems clear enough as has been reported by The Independent on February 16, 2004. Sheikh Hasina is reported to have told of her intention of taking forward the movement to 'oust government'. She was reportedly confident that the present phase of consultations with the opposition parties would bear fruit leading to the emergence of an alliance or partnership among them on a minimum programme. Partnership approach in politics, as far as Bangladesh is concerned, dates back to 1954 when the United Front Government was formed. In recent times, the approach to development also adopted partnership principle. If only partnership of political parties would adopt the substance of the principle followed in the development of economy, the political process would be vastly different from what it is now.

The untold events of mid-eighties
During the mid-eighties, Ershad government was worried about the possibility of holding elections. The opposition parties then grouped into two broad alliances. First, the 7-party alliance led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) with Khaleda Zia spearheading the movement. Second, the 15-party alliance led by the Awami League (AL) with Sheikh Haisna guiding the movement.

At that time, a top-secret (not in official sense) questionnaire was said to have been circulated to a select group of persons that included the politicians in the then ruling party, academicians and others. The obvious intention was to feel 'the pulse of the public opinion'. There were about nine questions of which at least five related to what would happen if one alliance or the other takes part in the elections. For instance, one of the questions asked was whether the BNP would disintegrate if the whole of AL and majority of 15-party alliance took part in the elections. Questions were also asked if it would be possible to hold the elections if only part of BNP excluding Khaleda Zia and some others and major components of 7-party alliance took part in the elections. Finally, question was also raised if the AL led by Hasina and majority of 15-party alliance continue their movement, whether it would further worsen the law and order situation.

Another important question asked was whether it would be wise to keep Janodal out of the cabinet for its better growth in the mainstream politics with active assistance of "Presidential Agencies". This phrase was not clearly defined in the questionnaire.

The implicit reference, however, was obvious. These agencies still exist despite every change of governments. Only the personnel change to suit the needs of the head of the government. It is not known what type of answers eventually shaped and influenced the decisions of the then President.

What next?
Jatiyo Party (E) had already declared that it would not join any alliance (February 16, 2004). Ershad is reported to have said that it would go in its own way considering the country's 'greater welfare'. He had a dig at both BNP and AL when he said that for 'more than a decade, the country became stagnant in all sectors' which demoralised the nation. The Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) also had expressed its intention of separate movement without joining any alliance (Dinkal, February 16, 2004). The same daily also reported the reactions of Jatiyo Samajtrantic Dal (JSD, Rab) when some leaders of AL met the party leaders in the same way they had met CPB. JSD (Rab) is reported to have agreed in principle on the question of 'unity in the interest of the nation' but whether it would join the alliance proposed by the AL is not clear. The question is to be decided later. Earlier, on February 14, Dr. Kamal Hossain's statement on the question of a common platform was reported. He is quoted to have said that the anti-government demonstration had to be launched with specific objectives. He further said "The unity is not only to topple government but to bring back a culture of healthy politics" (The Daily Star, February 14, 2004). Another party chief responded to AL's request saying that it would convey its decision after discussion within the party and with other allies.

In this context, it is relevant to refer to the rationale of CPB's stand. It is of the view that there was no scope of unity or alliances merely for the sake of a change in government. It would rather be supportive of unity to protect national resources alongside the elimination of crisis facing the nation. Implicit in such statement is the fact that one should think of long term objectives rather than short term ones. This is also implicit in the statement made by Dr. Kamal Hossain. The long term objective is to bring back a culture of healthy politics.

Alternatives to politics by politicians
Are there alternatives to politics by politicians? The answer to the question lies in hindsight which should sharpen our foresight. Frequent experiences of military government since 1958 and ending with 1990 tend to indicate that there are no alternatives to politics by politicians. Ayub Khan started the process of divide and rule resulting in the split of Muslim League. He started first with repressive instruments like Elective Bodies Disqualification Order that debarred "corrupt politicians" from seeking elections. There was also Public Offices Disqualification Order. These two orders were promulgated in 1959 to disqualify holders of public offices and members of the legislature from holding any public office for a period of 15 years, effective from the date of issue of such orders. Worse still, these were given retrospective effect from August 14, 1947. As later events proved, destiny did not favour 'the Man of Destiny' for Pakistan. These were used only to tame politicians to toe his line.

Borhanuddin Ahmed in his book The Generals of Pakistan and Bangladesh gives a graphic account of how the military might of Ayub Khan harassed politicians (former ministers) like Monoranjan Dhar, Khairat Hossain and Mansur Ali on flimsy charges which did not stand scrutiny. In case of Abul Mansur Ahmed, the senior most minister in the central cabinet under Suhrawardi's premiership, the story was even worse. His house was searched for eight hours after suitably amending the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 to permit arrest even before the case had been started. The amendment was published in the gazette simultaneously with the arrest. With all this, Ayub Khan did not find any alternative to politics without politicians. The stories of other Generals in post-Bangladesh period remain more or less the same. Worse still, in some cases, politicians who were convicted and jailed under Martial Law Regulations (MLR) were later inducted into the cabinet. The process of politics of criminalisation and/or criminalisation of politics started under martial law regimes seems to have come to stay. Against this backdrop, the assertions made by Dr. Kamal Hossain and also by CPB appear to be in the right direction.

Toppling and ousting government
This objective, as the trend of statements indicate, is a short-term one. Would it be a reenactment of the event of 1990? Even after 1990, the culture of healthy politics that Dr. Kamal Hossain refers to and many parties with leftist leanings are supportive of, has not been in place. This seems to be the perception among politicians of all descriptions in the opposition. Dr. B. Chowdhury also holds the same view and is presently engaged in seeking the support of civil society organisations.

On the question of toppling government by political movement, Dr. Kamal Hossain appears to have said that changes in government should be through elections. This is possible only if the government elects to resign. So far, many statements from the top leaders of BNP appear to indicate that they are firm in their stand not to resign earlier than their constitutionally mandated stay in power. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the interview of the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. In an interview with an electronic media, he referred to what is known as 'snap polls', which is opted for voluntarily by many political governments. He cited specific cases in the United Kingdom. The change of government in such cases is orderly and smooth. There is no need for people's power to pull down a government.

Unfortunately, this concept is alien to Bangladesh politics. Such a course of action is considered to be highly insulting and not democratic. There has not been any such instance in our political history. In such a situation, politics of agitation reinforces politics of repression without either of the opposing parties being wiser than the other. It is perhaps too early to say what the shape of things would be. The only thing which is visible is that the cost to the country and the sufferings of the citizens remain enormous.

The magnitude of the enormity of such costs and sufferings can better be imagined than described. The question is: are the politicians for citizens and the country or are the citizens and the country for the politicians? At this point of time, one can only hope and pray that sanity rather than narrow party interests will guide the actions of both set of parties who are seemingly on a war path now.

A M M Shawkat Ali, PhD, is former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.