Politicians lobbying abroad

.
.

When BNP alleged that the Khulna and Gazipur elections had set a fresh precedent for staged elections, ruling Awami League’s general secretary sneered, “Go complain to the foreigners!” Whether they actually complained or not is another matter, but the US ambassador in Dhaka, Marcia Bernicat, did express her concern at the discrepancies in those two elections. She even asked for a probe into the irregularities. Her words didn’t go down well with the leaders of the ruling party, some of accusing her of violating diplomatic norms. Some even advised that she pay attention to the incongruities in the US election instead.

The ruling party must be thanked for advising the foreigners not to worry their heads over Bangladesh’s elections. The only problem is that their words don’t match their deeds. Everyone is well aware of the role played by the Indian foreign secretary Sujata Singh in favour of the 5 January 2014 election purportedly held for the sake of constitutional continuity. And this time round, Awami League’s uneasy reaction was quite clear when BNP went all the way to Delhi with an appeal that India displays no bias towards Awami League in the coming election. This was even quite evident in the recent Delhi trip of Hossain Toufique Imam, the ruling party’s chief election coordinator. He strongly reiterated the refrain that BNP was pro-Pakistan and India could never trust them.

Hossain Toufique Imam didn’t just limit himself to BNP bashing. He went as far as to say that Teesta was no longer an issue between the two countries. He was speaking at the Observer Foundation, a research institute of India’s ruling Hindutva party BJP, whose leaders play a pivotal role in formulating the party’s security and foreign policy.

There has been no official announcement relinquishing any claim to Teesta waters, so if critics contend that he conveyed  that a big concession would be made in order to win India’s support in the coming election, what would be the response be? Meeting him in Brussels on Tuesday, I asked about his statement in The Hindu and other media. He said they had reported correctly. But the conversation went no further as he was surrounded by members of the team he had brought along to justify the actions of his government and party to members of the European parliament. I had asked for an appointment but he couldn’t make the time.

At Delhi he also said that India should drive BNP people, and those of the BNP ilk, out of their country. He said Hefazat-e-Islam has a huge number of supporters and since it was not possible to contain them, the government had adopted a different strategy. He said many of them had joined Awami League.

Just as India has interest in Bangladesh’s election, it is not unnatural for other countries to be interested too. But as in the past, the ruling party feels only the foreigners who side with them have the right to express their views about the Bangladesh election. Those whose statements go against the government, have no right to interfere. In the past when Awami League was in the opposition, it was at their behest that the Commonwealth sent Sir Stephen Ninian to mediate, but anyone under 30 years of age is not likely to know that, unless they have dabbled a bit in recent history.

And a significant part of the Awami League leaders’ statements during discussions with the members of the European parliament (MEPs) was about the coming election. The MEPs stressed the need for a free, transparent and participatory election. They said this called for an independent and strong election commission, peaceful campaigning, free expression of views, and ensuring that the voters could vote freely.

The Awami League delegates who came to Brussels all held important posts in the party. Along with Hossain Toufique Imam were finance advisor Mashiur Rahman, head of the parliamentary standing committee for foreign affairs Dipu Moni, publicity secretary Hasan Mahmud and young member of parliament Fazle Nur Taposh. They all tried to explain how good the government’s socioeconomic polices are and to highlight the achievements of the government. Despite all the allegations of human rights violations and disregard for the rule of law, they were doing good for the country. BNP’s violence and corruption was responsible for all the woes. They also said that Jamaat had virtually taken over BNP. They also highlighted their grand humanitarianism in sheltering over a million Rohingya refugees.

Not everyone buys the saying, the end justifies the means. That is why the other issues which cropped up in the discussions were freedom of expression, right of assembly and peaceful protest, opportunity to campaign without obstruction, ensuring that the people could vote freely and so on. While economic development was acknowledged, questions arose on the wide rich-poor gap and the drop in average income of the common man. And why had the standard of education taken a nose dive?

When the European Union ambassador called upon the prime minister last week, she was told the coming elections would be participatory. In Brussels too, the Awami League leaders tried to convince everyone that the elections would be participatory. The European Union’s concern can hardly be questioned, given that they have funded the initiative to increase the competence and efficiency of the election commission. They are the ones who supplied transparent ballot boxes to the election commission. That is quite natural in this age of globalisation. Before making snide remarks about foreign diplomats to spite the opposition, one must look in the mirror first.

BNP boycotted the meeting, accusing Conservative Party MEP Charles Tannock of being biased in the past. How far they benefitted politically from the boycott, they themselves can say, but it certainly hasn’t stopped them from being accused of complaining to the foreigners.

The latest allegations involving a foreigner were about Alex Carlisle of Britain’s House of Lords. He has been subject to controversy for the past few years because of his opposition to hanging war criminals. He had been appointed as Khaleda Zia’s legal counsel, but was barred from entering Dhaka and Delhi. How far the government has benefitted from this, also remains a question. But it has given clout to those who see a political shade cast around the cases against Khaleda Zia.

* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist. This piece has been rewritten in English by Ayesha Kabir.