Editorial
Khaleda's misplaced priorities
Parties first, not election schedule
Former prime minister and BNP chief Begum Khaleda Zia has asked the Election Commission to announce the election schedule without taking into consideration which parties are going to participate in it. Her exhortation needs to be analysed in the light of today's political reality and the situation that may arise if some major parties boycott the election. The BNP chairperson seems to be oblivious of what happened in 1996 when her party's election victory was very short-lived and counter-productive. The more recent example is of Thailand, where opposition-boycotted election had to be cancelled. If we want to maintain even a semblance of democracy, the participation of all major parties in the election is needed more than anything else. And any attempt to create the conditions where a party may remain out of the fray will be interpreted as a gross deviation from democratic practices. While exchanging views with the leaders of a professional group, the former prime minister resorted to utterances that, we believe, will do little to lessen political tension created between the two major alliances. She advised the caretaker government to concentrate on assisting the EC to announce the election schedule. Should we, then, have to surmise that the caretaker government must completely overlook the political developments that are undermining the democratic process itself? Doesn't it shoulder the responsibility of holding not only a free and fair election but also a meaningful one? The election is not a ritual, rather it is the only vehicle for continuing our journey along the democratic path. And the journey is bound to be perilous if some important co-travellers are left behind. Begum Khaleda Zia has demanded that the caretaker government perform only the routine jobs (that, too, determined by her). It will further push CG towards controversy. She has apparently forgotten that her party was a great beneficiary of the steps taken by the caretaker government in 2001. Then why does she want it to play a benignly passive role this time around? Well, the immediate past government and the opposition are likely to have diametrically opposite views on the functioning of the caretaker government. But they cannot expect the interim administration to behave differently when their roles are reversed after five years.
|