The New Nation - Internet Edition

Hasnat Abdul Hye

The most important dialogue to make a breakthrough in the political impasse of the country has been elusive so long. It is the dialogue among the major political parties who are at loggerheads among themselves, mostly on sentimental grounds. Clash of personalities has also played a part in the aggravation of the political situation. Animosity and ill feelings have grown so much that the top leaders of the two parties are not even on talking terms. This is unthinkable in a democracy where bi-partisanship in matters of national interest is the norm. Bangladesh politics has not acquitted itself well in this regard, much to the distress of the nation and disbelief by foreigners.

The political crisis that led to the clamping of emergency rule on one eleven and putting politics on hold for two years was the making of the political parties. Had they not created a situation of anarchy leading the country to the brink of catastrophe, there would be no need to interrupt the political process and postpone the general election. Contrary to what has been bandied about by some, there was no conspiracy from any quarter to scuttle the normal course of politics. Intervention became inevitable and unavoidable when the normal course of politics was deflected as a result of agitation and confrontation among political parties. It was out of sheer despair that the people welcomed the change brought in by the emergency. Everyone expected and the caretaker government (ctg) declared as much, that the interregnum, when politics would be in the backburner, would be used to carry out political reforms before general election was held within two years. The reforms had several aspects, some of which were envisaged to be carried out by the political parties and some fell in the bailiwick of the caretaker government (ctg) and the concerned authorities under it like the Election Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission.

While the ctg went ahead with its reform measures, the political parties dithered or moved half-heartedly. More disappointing than the lackluster performance in respect of internal party reforms was the absence of any move to establish a working relation among the parties, particularly the two major parties, Awami League and BNP.

Normal working relation required agreement by all parties on a limited number of specific issues which have not only vitiated the relationship among them but also inflicted immense hardships on the people and stymied the progress of democracy. These issues are well known and include hartal, oborodh and boycott of the sessions of the Jatyo Sangsad. Though the civil society the business community pleaded on many occasions with the political parties to refrain from these insidious activities, it fell on deaf ears. The parties could not reach a consensus unless the leaders met and discussed the issues. Lack of communication let the political malaise to fester. Unfortunately, all the major parties suffer from cult of personality in varying degrees. The leaders and the workers in the parties look at the top for direction and guidance. As long as the leaders at the top believed in the strategy of attrition through confrontation, the leaders and workers below could not take any initiative to leave the beaten track. A dialogue among (or between) the leaders at the top thus became crucial for bringing about a change in the political culture. But who would bell the cat? The party leaders and workers could not dare to do it, lest they were suspected of disloyalty. The ctg could mediate among the parties, particularly the two major ones, and arrange for the dialogue, but because of a different strategy that it might have, this course was not taken. In the vacuum entered the foreign emissaries. In a frenetic move of unconventional diplomacy, different groups (even singly) of ambassadors and high commissioners went to the residence of the two top leaders of Awami League and BNP and held discussion with them in the past few days. Though no public disclosure was made it transpired that the main subject of discussion was the meeting between the two top leaders. Soon after this diplomatic shenanigans, both the leaders responded positively to their overtures and told the press that they were willing to sit together and talk. Though the nation sighed in great relief, it also felt embarrassed at the thought that the two leaders had to wait for foreign mediation to agree on a simple and mundane subject like having a meeting between them. If they had agreed on their own or in response to initiatives taken by some Bangladeshis, their stature would have gone up and they would have done the nation proud.

Be that as it may, having agreed to meet, the two leaders have now expressed differences of views about the procedure of the meeting. While the BNP supremo wants to meet without agenda, her counterpart wants to have a structured meeting with specific topics for discussion. Seemingly irreconcilable, the preferences of both the leaders can be met through staggered meetings. The first meeting can take place socially in a neutral place where the two leaders and other members of their parties can attend informally. The objective of the first meeting will be to break the ice and for creating normalcy in mutual relations. Following this social get-together for confidence-building, structured meetings with specific agenda can be held. Before the formal meetings, a working group with members from both the parties can sit together to prepare the agenda in a spirit of constructive engagement. Both the parties should realise that all the problems that divide them and all of their grievances cannot be resolved in the meetings. This has to be an ongoing process. What is important is to agree on major issues to sustain democratic politics in the country. There is nothing partisan about these (hartal, boycott), rather they are neutral in the sense that they do not affect any party exclusively or particularly. There is a win-win prospect for both in agreeing on these core issues.

Having agreed to talk, the two leaders now should not allow procedural matter to keep them apart. Simply by meeting each other they would make a major breakthrough. It would be not only a milestone but a landmark in the history of Bangladesh politics. Let there be no hesitation.