The New Nation - Internet Edition

Hasnat Abdul Hye

The Secretary General of the UN is a busy man, always pre-occupied with works for keeping peace and staving off war in a world where both are problematic. His responsibilities keep him tied down to his office at the bank of East River in New York. He has very little time for travelling and when he undertakes a trip to a country, it is because of a pressing need. Ban Ki-moon's recent visit to Bangladesh has to be seen in this light. During his brief visit to Dhaka what he did and said leave no doubt that he came here primarily as a trouble-shooter, to head-off a looming political crisis. It was not a pleasure trip nor one to convey appreciation for the 'achievements' made by Bangladesh as has been claimed by some.

Bangladesh has been flagged red as a country where politics means confrontation, agitation and violence. It also has the dubious distinction as a country where democracy is a fledgling for a long time, teetering on the brink, again and again. The chronic instability of political regimes has been a cause of worry for those countries and international organisations who provide assistance to the country for socio-economic development, though this has not been taken kindly by politicians and civil society members. In the paroxysm of nationalistic feelings it is often forgotten by many critics of foreign 'interference' that in the age of globalisation no country is an island and the concept of 'sovereignty' has undergone a metamorphosis.

In Dhaka Ban Ki-moon held meetings with the Chief Advisor, Chief of Army and leaders of political parties. He also visited a development project, financed by UNDP. His meetings with political leaders were particularly significant in view of how they reacted recently when the Resident Representative of UNDP in Dhaka remarked that election could be held even when emergency was in force. Ban Ki-moon's meetings with them was not to assuage their feelings but to press home the point that a new beginning of politics after two years moratorium required a different style and substance of politics. He emphasised on the importance of an entente cordiale, cordial relation among political parties to settle their differences.

In the banquet given by the Chief Adviser, the host told about the progress made for holding the election with the help from UNDP, development partners and the country's armed forces. The Chief Adviser informed the visiting dignitary about the reform programmes some of which were designed to make democracy strong and sustainable. Most have involved institution-building and drives against corruption and mal-governance, he said.

The UN Secretary General in his speech at the banquet said Bangladesh's most pressing need was to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy and for the incoming government to consolidate democracy to stem a reoccurrence of confrontational politics. He said an opportunity had opened for the country, particularly the political parties, to address the serious problems that gave rise to political instability and violence in the past. In his speech Ban Ki-moon said the current political dialogue between the government and the political parties in the process of transition must succeed. He then emphasised that equally important was for an ongoing constructive dialogue between the leadership of the two main political parties so as to stabilise and strengthen the quality of democracy in the country. He did not mention Awami League or BNP but it was obvious that he was referring to these two parties whose bitter rivalry and bellicosity spelt political upheaval at regular intervals, ultimately leading to the eventual 1/11 change-over. He reminded the political leaders that they faced a challenge to ensure smooth return to a better democracy, 'a democracy that is sustainable and responsive to the needs of the people.'

The speech of the Secretary General at the banquet gave an inkling into what he might have discussed in his meetings with the political leaders. He, like so many in Bangladesh, have realised that problem of unstable and violent politics was not germane to politics or democracy itself. Politics and democracy failed to flourish and strike deep roots for stability in Bangladesh because political parties and their leaders did not measure upto the requirements. Intolerance, hatred and violence that have characterised politics for over two decades have their roots in the dislike and animosity of political leaders towards each other. Politics practiced during this period saw no compromise, little mutual accommodation and have always been bitterly confrontational. Apart from personal rivalry, narrow partisan interests also vitiated the political atmosphere making a functioning democracy difficult. The political culture that has evolved in this climate of distrust and animus will not change simply because of a moratorium and a fresh start. There have to be a change of the hearts and the minds of politicians in order to make a fresh start successful. For this the politicians have to come closer and discuss issues of common interests in a spirit of reconciliation and co-operation. It is unfortunate that during the past 18 months neither the parties felt the urgency to hold talks among themselves nor the caretaker government persuaded the parties to close their ranks and develop relations congenial for stable democratic politics. The parties were in disarray after 1/11 and they had an excuse for not having such inter-party meetings but the caretaker government was not constrained in any way to initiate dialogues among the political parties. The CTG should have seen these dialogues as part of the reforms undertaken by them for a sustainable democratic dispensation.

There have been many dialogues, formal and informal, between the CTG, EC and the political parties in recent months. Much success could be achieved if these were held earlier. Starting late, the CTG has had to rush headlong because of the deadline set by itself for holding the election. Obviously, this hurry in the pace of 'dialogues' has failed to produce satisfactory results in some respects. For instance, both the Awami League and BNP are still insisting on lifting of emergency and withdrawal of cases against their leaders. If the dialogue were held one year ago the parties could not have made some of the demands that they are making now. They have even threatened to launch movements, which leaves no uncertainty about the lame duck character of the CTG in their minds. This perception has not been helpful for the CTG to press hard its viewpoints and promote the goals in the dialogues.

If the late start of the dialogue has been a handicap for the CTG to convince the political parties about the need to accept some of its conditions, the complete absence of a dialogue among the political parties, particularly between the major two parties, has allowed the old attitudes and relations among the parties to remain unchanged. The two major parties have already traded snide remarks among themselves and accused their rivals of conspiring with the power that be to come to power. If the CTG mediated among or between the parties to hold dialogues, the magnitude of differences between them could be reduced, if not eliminated altogether. As mediator, the CTG could have assumed a neutral role, prodding the parties to reach consensus on such issues as boycott of Jatiyo Sangsad, accepting the result of election when it is held in a free and fair manner, renouncing of hartal and siege (aborodh) and debar leaders who are corrupt and act as godfather to musclemen. These are important issues in the agenda for political reforms. Other reform measures could be pursued by the EC as they have done, though belatedly, under the RPO, 2008. In the format and network of dialogues the crucial missing link has been the absence of the meeting among the parties which make the exercise through dialogues incomplete and limited in effect.

It may not be too late to organise dialogues among the political parties to which the UN Secretary General drew attention. Having neglected this important aspect of political reform, the CTG should give its urgent attention and sponsor 'dialogues' for the political parties. At this late stage, much cannot be expected by way of promoting mutual accommodation among the parties but the process should be started. Taking lesson from the recent past, the parties may not give such an initiative mere lip service. There is no greater teacher than experience and the experiences of the parties have been rich and diverse. They have to be only reminded of this.