Committed to PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW
Vol. 5 Num 1082 Sun. June 17, 2007  
   
Editorial


The right to rule


Every nation gets its deserved way of governance, either by choice or by being subjected to it. Bangladesh has settled for representational democracy as a sensible option after it had been traumatized by spasms of madness.

There have been trials and tribulations, and it is presently going through another trial. The goal has, however, not changed. It is to return the country to the elected representatives. But, honestly, the road to it has become labyrinthine, because the politicians who exercise the right to rule stand so reviled.

The situation offers little option. It is either Harry or Henry. Our political landscape is overwhelmingly bi-partisan in its composition, and the two major political parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are like beehives with two queen bees in the centre. Take them out and the structure becomes fragile. Woe to the times!

The charges that have come out against the two ladies look like the forests have started moving. Rationally charges do not make facts unless the judicial process is completed. The charges are however so colossal that at best the forest can turn out to be a bush. But can it turn out into a rose garden? Little hope. Even the bottom line is morally repugnant.

The country, irrespective of political colour, laments over the cruellest cut our politicians had inflicted on the common people by blatantly abusing the right to rule. Public trust has been trashed! When trust is lost, what remains is bestial. We are going through crucial times.

The only thing against the present caretaker government is that they are not elected. Naturally our political parties and their leaders may come back fuming, with cries of foul play and legitimacy, when the electoral process gets going. Should we believe them, or should we believe Edmund Burke's saying "It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare?"

Sadly, our political parties have not left behind endearing track records. Should we deal with the recent times? Let us begin by asking "who done it", although it has become so boring an exercise. Who brought in the present CTG?

Plainly it is the failure of the two alliances, the 14-party alliance and the four-party alliance led by AL and BNP, respectively, to come to terms for making the national polls possible during the constitutionally stipulated period of 90 days. They knowingly imperilled the constitutional option.

The AL led 14-party alliance, by its medieval bellicosity and capricious conduct, forced a breakdown in sensible deliberation. The 4-party alliance led by the BNP subverted the electoral process by its perfidious plans of election engineering, and by pulling the strings from behind and making the president a muddled stooge.

The country was taken hostage by the merchants of terror, and it waited for an apocalyptic showdown with great trepidation. A constitutional breakdown, with unknown implications, was threatening the state.

The country was stabilized by the declaration of the state of emergency. The new CTG came to the rescue of the country. It was a political contest lost, and a national call redeemed. Sanity returned. The supporters of a showdown made a point of owning it as their victory.

For a time the 14-party alliance flaunted it as their own victory, and an ignominious debacle for the 4-party alliance to lament. Its leader even declared that they would grant legitimacy to all the actions and decisions of the CTG. The mood soured soon, when AL leaders were being picked up in the CTG's anti-corruption drive.

It did not take much time for the sour mood to cause a tirade of words, when dark clouds were hovering over the AL leader's return home. In a outburst of anger, the AL chief castigated the caretaker government as being unconstitutional, and all its actions as being arbitrary.

It only compromised her standing, and spoke adversely of her political sagacity, because she knew fully well that the expiry of the 90-day period would plunge the country into a constitutional crisis. Here we have something to bemoan, that the right to rule counts fickleness and naiveté among its virtues. If this is so, then what would she do with the weighty matters like the state and governance?

On the other side, the BNP chief was known to often say that we have friends not masters outside the country. She made this statement with great panache while touring the country, particularly during national polls. The authority of her statement conveyed the impression that it was one of her prized weapons.

Now the table has been turned on her. Recent revelations suggest that the BNP has more than one master, and that includes Pakistan! She had solicited and received Taka 100 crores each from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Pakistan for her party electioneering fund.

The disclosure is devastating. As the head of the government the outgoing prime minister can surely solicit aid support from friendly governments. Taka 300 crore would surely have helped to build a 100-megawatt power plant. It was abominably unfeeling and improper for the head of the government of a sovereign country to make representations for her party and not for her struggling country!

The right to rule has been irredeemably dishonoured if the disclosures are proved to be true. What can one possibly imagine in a slugfest of a political culture where the one has to match the other. The right to rule among the political tribe is badly tainted.

To be honest the right to rule is a trust. The people choose their representatives from among the politicians, and trust them with the task of ruling or governing the country with integrity, and as the highest call of duty. The politicians are honour-bound to compete with each other in dignity, and in a way that sets the trend for the country.

Where does Bangladesh stand as a country in this regard? The scenario is lamentable. It is a ravenous brotherhood of convenience among errant politicians, wily businessmen, corrupt officials, thuggish community representatives, pilfering parasites and scavenging lowly scum of the society gorging on a country struggling to beat off poverty. Evidently, the trust has been abused, and the degree of abuse leaves little for building enduring hope.

Can we reasonably think that the brotherhood will become unstuck after the next polls? What the country needs is a regulatory body (or should I say a supplementary body) for the parliament, a sort of a council of guardians or elders, that would make it difficult for the brotherhood to come together.

An upper house of the parliament may be an idea to start with. Once it is in place, we will have to make it work. Let it not be a snoozing chamber, or ineffectual like our titular president, or a pugnacious adversary locking horns with the lower house to debilitate the governing process. The lesson of the time is that the parliament cannot be left alone to drift to its delight.

Syed Maqsud Jamil is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.