The country is faced with no political crisis, in fact, at the moment; what we observe is the challenge of clearing irritants of the past during the current journey towards future. The destination: A democratic Bangladesh.
This general consensus, if we assume this as the case, is simultaneously the cause and effect of the 5 August 2024 political changeover. Despite that development, it is being noticed of late, there is obvious mutual distrust among the stakeholders, under the influence of a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign by the desperate forces of the fallen regime.
As if, in case the ongoing reform programmes are fully implemented, there will be no elections in the country; if there is quick election, the reform process will die down. Is this called a perfect dilemma!
Under the circumstances, amid war of words, we, perhaps subconsciously, refrain from asking one critical question – could the recent discussion on fair election and state reforms be possible, dear learned friends, had there been no July-August revolution in Bangladesh?
That a government to be elected by the people would lead and run the country, is a non-negotiable issue; however, it’s been essential as well to repair the institutions that the fascist rule had destroyed, in order to create the atmosphere for holing free and neutral elections.
Of course there is no difference of opinion on this particular issue among the key political parties, only except the fallen Bangladesh Awami League (AL) and its crime partners.
Neither has the government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus said there will be no elections in the country in the near future, nor have the major political parties including Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) opposed the reform initiatives in principle.
Only the political rhetoric, ‘excess’ talks on social media and discussion of fertile brains at adda (rendezvous) (apart from threat to revert to the fascist rule), have created a state of confusion in society and made the civil society bewildered and political minds restless.
So, no careful political observer can deny, this political atmosphere of suspicion and doubts has a historic legacy. As a matter of fact, we are a nation who have been haunted by the past of broken promises of the incumbents. Somehow many of the politicians remained unwilling to follow prudent but straight path for attaining political goals to serve the people.
Be it in the struggle for realisiing political objectives or at critical moments of bargaining, I can’t recall, we have been able to show our prowess at the negotiation table, perhaps out of old mindset or complex about our own qualifications. Also, whenever we sat for talks, the outcome remained zero in most cases.
Thus we witnessed violent political changeover in 1970, 1990 and 2024 and failure in dialogue on the election-time government in 1995, 2006. 2013-14 and 2018.
Both in the political activism on the ground and at negotiation table, the common most reason for failure to secure successful outcome of peaceful political transition was the failure to reach the minimum political agreement and strike certain contract acceptable to all parties concerned.
Therefore, we have to do what we have not been able to do earlier in order to bring changes in the culture of running the state after effective refo9rms and genuinely fair elections. A new example has to be set in today’s congenial atmosphere. That would be something which will be easily understandable and trustworthy to people.
The political contract that we have not been able to strike in the past, must be made possible this time around. And for that to happen, we will need a national dialogue with open mind.
Why, gentlemen? What else do we want to achieve when the political parties as the key stakeholders have already submitted their feedbacks (observations and opinions) to the reports prepared by the reforms commissions?
That is right, but those feedbacks were one-sided reactions, like the statements in the reports written in sign language. The gap in thinking between the stakeholders is also a matter of concern for the nation.
In the current reality, it is almost impossible to prepare a document of national consensus based on recommendations of various commissions and well considered views of the stakeholders, without a genuine bilateral or multilateral and face-to-face lively discussions.
That’s why, before extreme difference of opinion or national frustration is created out of uncertainty in the most necessary reforms amd the essential general elections, an initiative may be taken to hold a universal stakeholders’ dialogue in Bangladesh.
A national conference may be arranged in the light of weeklong huge international conference or post-revolutionary national conventions in some countries.
One may raise question as to what’s the loss if such a conference is not arranged at all?
The answer is: If some sort of dialogue is not held between the stakeholders at the national level, we may miss the chance of a century and the country may still revolve around the same cultural cycle full of egoistic activities as seen during the Hasina regime.
On the other hand, if we choose the path of dialogue and national reconciliation, there can be serious debates and discussions on all relevant national issues at different sessions.
The basis for such dialogue can be yet-to-be-written-and-announced proclamation of the July-August revolution, a document which can be drafted in the light of the objectives of the long struggle for democracy and public aspirations reflected in the movement against fascism.
The recommendations and observations of the government authorities and various commissions may also be presented better in the working sessions of the conference.
All the stakeholders including representatives of the political parties shall be able to prepare a document of social contract following agreements on a series of critical and contentious issues. Such a social contract may be signed finally at the summit level meeting of the conference.
That contract may be considered as the charter for running the future state, the charter which can further prove the state of our civilization and capacity and qualifications as a nation.
As a result, there should be no deficiency in political ownership of the reforms required for bringing changes to attain national salvation for our generations, today’s and tomorrow’s.
By then, we’ll see no barriers to holding free, fair, neutral, credible and inclusive elections with participation of all democratic political parties and forces.
However, for the sake of fair and morally correct position, let me make it clear that the fascist, undemocratic parties and groups or the ones which killed democracy in the past, and the ones which acted against the interest of the nation and state, should not be made party to such a democratic political transition.
The electoral train Professor Muhammad Yunus has already talked about and which should continue to move, can only run smoothly to reach the destination, if it is kept on the right track, in all respect.
A successful national dialogue can smoothen such path and the journey towards the destination. Whether we will take the responsibility of building our collective future and pledge to work hard together towards achieving that goal, is a matter of decision to be taken by the living generations.
* Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist. He can be reached at khawaza@gmail.com.