The election is over. It is now time to turn a new leaf. It is time to rise above divisions and heal old wounds. This was the sentiment expressed by the US president Joe Biden after winning the 2020 election.
His Republican contender Donald Trump challenged the election results and created a furor that led to the riots at Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021. The wounds created in the psyche of the American citizens by the incident are yet to heal, three years on. Another election is around the corner and people are not ruling out the possibility of the incident being repeated. Some are even getting a whiff of a bloody civil war in the air. A public opinion survey of 2021 said that 41 per cent of Biden’s supporters and 52 per cent of Trump’s supporters are agreeable to divide the country into two at the moment.
Differences of opinion and party divides are very natural in a democratic political system. The main aim is to gain power. Each party has its own vision and mission to take the country ahead. It is not possible to materialise that vision unless one has a share in power. And elections are the only legitimate way to implement that vision and mission. But it cannot be said that an election can ensure a resolution to the internal divisions within a country or nation. The US today stands as proof to that. We may take the Bangladesh example into consideration too.
US analysts see three reasons for the divisions in the US today – racism, steadily increasing inequality due to the capitalist financial system, and he divided information system. Added to this is the fear of the powerful class losing power due to demographic changes in the country. Unabated immigration – legal and illegal – is not only accelerating this process but is steadily heading towards bloodshed and violence.
Ideological polarisation does not signify importantly in this divide, though everyone chooses one ideological way or the other to overcome this division. This way could be left or right, conservative or liberal, religious or secular. As a symbol of the state, the role of the government is important too here. Some feel the government has a role to avoid this ongoing divide. Others feel that the more the role of the government can be curtailed, the easier it will be to evade this polarization.
Countries under the modern democratic state system have followed various prescriptions to reduce the internal divisions in their respective countries, but in most cases the divisions have not decreased. They have, on the contrary, increased. The reason behind this is possibly that the people behind these dividing walls are not ideological, but bound together by communal ties. This tribal loyalty is a characteristic of ancient societies. In fact, tribal loyalty was not only determined by religion or language, but even by physical markings. It had been thought that by the formation of the national state, it would be possible to overcome this tribal loyalty, but that has not been so.
Differences of opinion and party divides are very natural in a democratic political system. The main aim is to gain power. Each party has its own vision and mission to take the country ahead. It is not possible to materialise that vision unless one has a share in power. And elections are the only legitimate way to implement that vision and mission
Take the US, for example. In the red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) political divide of the country, one is conservative and the other is liberal. Had it been just ideological, the division would have been much calmer because ideological loyalties are much more accommodating. It is quite common for today’s communist to become a capitalist tomorrow. But the present division in the US is tribal. Tribal loyalties are so strong that either side considers each other as enemies. Yale University professor, Amy Chua, remarked that due to these tribal loyalties, there is no alternative but to defeat the opposition side.
This divide has become so deep-rooted and taken on such permanence that coexistence is hardly an effective or realistic alternative. As the US writer George Packer contends, tribal loyalty demands whole and unconditional submission. This submission not only ensures the members of the tribe to determine their identity, but also gives them the security of tribal division. This submission is their identity badge, not a manifestation of their way of thinking.
2.
Bangladesh is also a politically divided society. This divide is not ideological at all. The people on either side of the divide often cross over to the other side. Today’s friend is tomorrow’s foe. Living in this divided territory are the left and the right, the religious and the secular, the pro-independence and anti-independence groups, conservatives and liberals, etc. The people are in no ideological tussle, but in a race to share power. If state power were a pizza pie, the centre of the division is who will get a bigger share of the pie.
Elections were recently held in Bangladesh. If anyone had imagined that this would serve to close gap created in the political society by tribal divide, this did not happen. In fact, this has simply been extended further. It has come to such a point that persons on either side of the dividing wall do not see themselves as persons of differing views, but as the enemy. Does that mean this division, whether we define it as party, tribal or ideological divide, is irrevocable and unchangeable?
Whether the crisis on political division is in Bangladesh or the US, the precondition to resolving it is admitting that there is a real crisis, not an imaginary one. If it cannot be resisted, it will eventually, today or tomorrow, become really irredeemable. This admission has been made by the highest level of political leadership in the US. The reference I made to Joe Biden’s conjecture at the start of my writing, contains this admission. It is, of course, a different question as to how far he or the members of his tribe are sincere in resolving this crisis.
Outside of the political leadership, those who are involved in the enactment and implementation of laws and policies, have taken pragmatic measures to resolve these problems. There are certain stakeholders in the American political landscape who are never willing to make the slightest compromise. They are known as the purists. Outside of that, there are those who we know as pragmatists. This second group is eager to resolve the crisis and believe that it is not possible to reach any solution unless concessions are made so that the interests of either side are upheld. In other words, there is no alternative but to come to an understanding.
Persons from both of these camps are part of the 'problem solving caucus' in the US Congress, dealing with all sorts of problems from immigration, foreign policy, environmental control and more. We often do not see the actions of these moderate actors as they remain behind the scenes, but it is because of these people that the wheels of US politics did not come to a sudden halt.
This non-political research organisation said that the ruling quarters may be able to hold on to power in the short term, but the opposition will not give up their political opposition. That means political and economic pressure will mount on the government. There is only one way out of this crisis and that is for the two opposing sides to hold dialogue. And it is the responsibility of those at the centre of power to be the first to extend their hand to this end
There is also significant initiative at a citizens' level aimed at ensuring that persons at opposite poles heed each other. A Time magazine report says that there are over 8000 programmes in the US aimed at bringing persons of divergent views, face to face. Some of these are research and university-based, and some are community based. According to Time, they are bipartisan in character. These organisations include, Search for Common Ground, Hope in the Cities, Essential Partners, etc.
All members, from the within the Congress to the university classrooms and participants in think-tank seminars, are in consensus about one issue: This country belongs to everyone, not to one party or tribe. If the country proceeds down the right path, everyone stands to gain. If it goes down the wrong path, everyone stands to lose. The red and the blue must shake hands to overcome the internal crisis in the US. In a speech delivered in 2004, Barack Obama said there is no red America, there is no blue America. We are just a single and undivided United States. That is as true now as it was then.
Bangladesh suffers from the same deep malady as the US. Their ailment may seem different externally, but is same at the core. So if a solution is to be sought, lessons can be learnt from persons on either side of the divide. The first step towards curing any disease is to acknowledge that there is a disease. Bangladesh's prime minister herself said that her government will take lessons from past mistakes and advance ahead. We can take that as the first step in acknowledging that we are afflicted by a malady. But it will not do to stop there. Pragmatic steps must be taken to resolve the political polarisation. This calls for dialogue and understanding. It is not only professional politicians, but the civil society and the common people who can play a meaningful role in this dialogue.
The general secretary of Bangladesh's ruling party rightfully said that the country faces a three-pointed crisis -- political, economic and diplomatic. It will not be easy for the government to overcome this three-pointed crisis very easily. This is exactly what was stated by the International Crisis Group in its pre-election prescription regarding how Bangladesh can emerge from this serious ailment.
This non-political research organisation said that the ruling quarters may be able to hold on to power in the short term, but the opposition will not give up their political opposition. That means political and economic pressure will mount on the government. There is only one way out of this crisis and that is for the two opposing sides to hold dialogue. And it is the responsibility of those at the centre of power to be the first to extend their hand to this end.
* Hasan Ferdous is a writer and columnist
* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir