After the Bangladesh visit of US undersecretary Uzra Zeya and her team, the leaders and activists of the ruling Awami League seemed quite elated, even if it was just on the surface. But with the uncertainty and complexity that has gripped politics in the country, it is hard to discern what is going on behind the scenes.
There are two visible reasons for this show of elation by Awami League. This visit of the US government team was centered on the government and the ruling party. They had no interactions with the opposition. Even the meeting between Uzra Zeya and the prime minister lasted longer than scheduled. And Awami League may well feel pleased by Uzra Zeya’s press briefing and her interview.
The US for some time has been avoiding the use of the term ‘inclusive election.’ Uzra Zeya made the matter even clearer during her visit. A possible caretaker government or anyone boycotting the election is up to the people of Bangladesh. The US has no role in this regard. During her trip, Uzra Zeya tried to make it clear that the US gives due importance to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s role in arranging a free, fair and peaceful election. She also tried to make it clear that the US did not want to be involved in taking sides or in the election process.
Many people within Awami League feel that this visit of Uzra Zeya and its consequences have gone in favour of Awami League. And this is the message given out by Awami League to party people and the public. Party general secretary Obaidul Quader said that the Americans spoke of fair elections, not about inclusive elections. It is clear that they are trying to use the fact that the US didn’t mention ‘inclusive election’, for their political ends. They want to imply that BNP’s participation in the election is not a matter of importance to the US.
Other than the official narrative of Uzra Zeya about her trip, surely there was further interaction with government people. In diplomacy, it is the important messages that are often spoken in secrecy. We do not know if any such thing transpired during this visit. But what we saw is that after this visit, either Awami League’s confidence had got a big boost, or they had taken up a strategy to appear enthusiastic.
The party leaders have started speaking in inflexible and hard terms. This is evident in their actions too. The BNP procession was attacked in several areas of the country. The police and the ruling party people have adopted confrontational stances. Cases have begun against BNP leaders and activists.
The statements made by the team led by Uzra Zeya this time were all addressed to the government. They wanted effective steps by the government so that the next national election would be ‘free, fair, neutral and peaceful.’
This stand of the US can have two interpretations. Firstly, it may seem that the government wants to depend on the government about the next election. It does not involve that opposition’s demand for a caretaker government or an election time government. If that is the explanation of the US stand, then it is only natural for Awami League to be elated and confident.
Secondly, the US stand may be interpreted as that they feel it is Awami League government’s responsibility to ensure a ‘free, fair, neutral and peaceful’ election whether by means of an election time government, by means of dialogue, by means of persuading the opposition to join the election, or by any other means. It is obvious that the election will not be ‘peaceful’ without the participation of the opposition. And that is the responsibility which Uzra Zeya has spoke about. Awami League is well aware that this is a difficult task and also what the political consequences of this may be.
The question is, how is Awami League interpreting US’ stand and what strategy are they adopting in accordance to this. The US did not mention inclusive elections not did it mention any election time government. Has this really reassured Awami League? Or are they flustered that the US thinks that all responsibility for a free and fair election lies with the government? The manner in which Awami League has taken up a hard stance once again, its display of confidence or highlighting elections without BNP, indicate it feels more discomfort than comfort over the US stand.
With both sides remaining inflexible, the apprehension of violence looms large. It is the government that must take the first and the major step to avoid such a situation.
This visit of the US team that centered on the government and the ruling party perhaps threw BNP into a dilemma. It is clear that they were not much at ease over the outcome of this trip. The issue of dialogue was raised during this visit. The US said they want dialogue, but do not want to play a role in this. It seems that BNP and its well wishers are rather apprehensive about any dialogue in the present circumstances. They feel that if a dialogue is held before their movement has properly gained momentum, it might impede the movement. Many feel that dialogue is a ploy to disrupt the movement and waste time. Uzra Zeya’s visit has left behind all these new calculations and considerations in Bangladesh’s politics.
The election must be held within less than six months time. Awami League’s stand is that the party will not budge an inch from the constitution. BNP, on the other hand, is determined that there will be no election under this government. The country has definitely reached a point of political standstill.
After 1990, all the major political conflicts and clashes that have taken place, centre the elections and the election time government. Amid all these conflicts and clashes, certain ways and means and formulas cropped up as to how a fair and credible election could be held. None of those remain intact today.
Experience tells us that none of the dialogues that had been held before going towards conflicts and clashes proved to be successful. The arrangements, no matter what they may have been, only emerged after bloodshed and a kind of settlement on the streets. This continuity did not last after 2008. There was violence before and after the 2014 election one-sided election, but the election did not bring about any political resolution. There was no violence before the 2018 election and it was an inclusive one, but it earned the slur of being an election where the votes were cast on the night before.
All sides are saying that there should not be any election like that of 2014 or of 2018 anymore. These two elections were held without any political arrangement or settlement. If the next election is to be free, fair, unbiased and credible, this unsettled political arrangement must be settled before the election.
The question is, how will that be done? There are two ways: discussion and dialogue or settling things on the streets and bloodshed. With both sides remaining inflexible, the apprehension of violence looms large. It is the government that must take the first and the major step to avoid such a situation.
* AKM Zakaria is Deputy Editor of Prothom Alo