‘I see nothing good ahead with this trend of politics’

After two consecutive questionable elections, BNP and quite a few other parties are not joining the election this time. Where is Bangladesh’s politics headed?

It wasn’t that questions were raised only about the elections of 2014 and 2018. Questionable elections were held in Bangladesh from way back. During the rule of General Ershad, there had been an election without voters in 1988. Awami League, BNP and many other parties had boycotted that election. I had visited many of the polling centres at the time and saw a handful of Ershad loyalists and no one else. No one had gone to vote. So boycotting the election is nothing new in Bangladesh.

Also, other than a couple of exceptions, all the elections have been questionable. After Bangladesh’s independence, when Chhatra League understood it was losing the Dhaka Union Central Students Union elections and the hall union elections, they drove off with the ballot boxes loaded onto trucks. The candidates who were defeated in the 1973 election had extensive allegations. During Ziaur Rahman’s rule, the elections were reduced to a meaningless farce.

Who is responsible for this state of affairs in Bangladesh’s politics? Do you see any way out?

Basically it is the trend of politics practiced by Awami League and BNP that is responsible for this predicament. Before, it was these parties that were solely responsible, now they have some partners too. BNP has nothing political to say other than some rhetoric for the public before the election. At one time, Awami League had political statements, but over the last 15-year stretch in government, that political talk has ended too. Bangladesh’ civil society organisations haven’t taken much risk to venture ahead either. That is why Bangladesh’s politics is traversing down the wrong path. In other words, Bangladesh’s politics has steadily been reduced to an undemocratic struggle for power. Given the present trend of politics, I do not see much good in the future.

Politics requires education, thought and a degree of preparation before going to power, but our political parties do not believe in this, be it Awami League, BNP, Jatiya Party or the left parties. They make statements and speeches at meeting with no prior preparation. Bangladesh’s political parties pay no attention to building up the party, but instead focus on building up the image of the leader. And then dynastic politics is added to this. Such politics is not democratic. Bangladesh’s politics has deteriorated to an extent where I see no possibility of healthy political growth.

After a long period of military rule, we reverted to democracy in 1991. A democratic and credible election was held Why could that continuity not be maintained?

During the Cold War, in the sixties and the seventies we saw military takeovers in countries were the governments were weak. The US would instigate these military coups and would back the government’s formed through these coups. In the mid-eighties, the US moved away from this stand. This made it essential to have elections in Bangladesh too for the sake of regime change.

Many foreign observers came to observe the election in Bangladesh in 1991. They came from the US, from UK, France, Germany and Japan. The observers and delegates who had come from these countries, helped in holding the election. It is hard to believe that the parties could reach a consensus on the question of elections without foreign powers. In the subsequent elections too, we saw outside powers, including the UN, endeavouring to mediate in various ways.

Can we not resolve our own political problems? Is our mindset responsible for this, or is there any historical context to this?

There can be anthropological and geographical reasons behind this. There was a time when Kolkata was most advanced in knowledge, science, thought and studies. From Japan, China, and the states of Indochina, or Iran, Iraq, Egypt right down to South America, there was no city at par with Kolkata. When politics was taken up in the Indian subcontinent during the British rule, we find a few names among Bengali leaders like Surendranath Bandopadhaya, Chittaranjan Das, Sher-e-Bangla AK Fazlul Haque and a others. But political leadership did not remain in their hands. It went to the hands of the North Indian leaders.

Many are of the opinion that the Bengalis, anthropologically speaking, lack in political capacity and mindset. We fail to display a long-standing acumen in politics. We cannot build up united forces. Then again, many feel that due to Bangladesh’s geographical location, climate, the manner in which we have abundant crop yield with minimum labour, our food habits (where rice is indispensible), the people here are not physically or mentally strong either.

Anthropological and geographical reasons are seen at the failure for democracy to grow in Bangladesh. If we look at the anti-British movement, questions arise there why the Bengalis could not succeed. In the 19th century Bankinchandra Chattopadhaya raised the question as to why Bengalis could not build up as a political force. Rabindranath Tagore also raised important thoughts on the matter. We need to delve into their thoughts on the matter in search of an answer.        

Political unrest is impacting society in various ways. The youth are the most affected. A large section of them want to leave the country. How do you see the matter?          

Good students of the universities, even colleges, are desperate to leave the country and go abroad. They feel that politics in this country will never improve, public life will never be good here. They believe that the country is surviving because of the rule of law, but there is no justice in politics. The youth feel that politics has reached a state of anarchy. They will not have a healthy and normal life if they remain here. A section of youth had such thoughts from beforehand. But over the last 10 to 15 years this has taken on massive dimensions. It is very important to determine the reason why the youth want to go abroad. Broadly speaking, the answer is that there is no healthy political practice here. And if there is no healthy politics, it will inevitably have a negative impact on the youth.           

Has it been possible to generate adequate and dignified employment for the youth?

In the sixties and the seventies the lack of job opportunities and unemployment was a glaring problem. Persons graduating from university had a tough time finding jobs. With the emergence of NGOs and civil society organisations in the country from the eighties, scope grew for good sources of income. That continued. But in recent years NGO activities have slowed down. Unemployment is on the rise. It is essential to find a way out. Economists talk on these matters, but other than them it is also essential for journalists and political leaders to express their thoughts on these issues. But politicians are not doing so. And economists only deal with the economic angle. But they are unable to come up with a clear statement about how our economy should grow in the context of international relations.              

It was the commitment of the liberation war to create a society free of inequality. But we are seeing a steady increase in inequality.

We must look into the reason why this inequality has grown to such proportions. Many comment about this based on common sense, but actually research is required to actually understand why this is so. Economists should be able to say what is required to build Bangladesh up as an independent and sovereign state. But for whatever the reason may be, they are not speaking about that. This is a weakness in their thinking. We have to break away from the World Bank mould and think for ourselves.

Polarisation is increasing globally. Geopolitical pressure on Bangladesh is stronger than ever before. But we are not seeing any national consensus on the question of geopolitics.

The world is divided into two centres today. On one side there is China and Russia. India leans towards this centre, it can be said, as they are not completely going towards the US. The other centre is the US, UK, the European Union, Japan, Australia and Canada. This polarization is growing strong. The US wants Bangladesh to join its Indo-Pacific Strategy, and is applying pressure to this end. But Bangladesh is continuing with its principle of friendship towards all and malice towards none.

The western countries are strong economically and militarily. We must see how the western countries are uniting, and how Russia and China are uniting. We must take this into consideration and determine our foreign policy pragmatically. There was the non-aligned movement at one time which basically meant we were neither in favour of the Soviet Union nor in favour of America. After Bangladesh became independent, the Banglabandhu government was with the Non-Aligned Movement. Maulana Bhasani was also a strong advocate of the Non-Aligned Movement. In the present circumstances, a non-aligned movement can be revived again to break away from the geopolitical skirmishes. Any country can take up such an initiative.

There was a time when our civil society was vocal, at least to a certain extent. Why has the scope of the civil society shrunk so far?

You don’t see the word ‘intellectual’ in the newspapers any more, you see the term ‘eminent persons’. It is important why this change has occurred. Why did the word ‘intellectual’ come into currency at one time and why was it dropped? We must look into this. I do not see anyone thinking about this. This is being imposed on us by western powers.

The civil society had a role in the movement in the eighties. But after the 1991 election, they failed to play any role. A citizens’ committee was formed a couple of times. There was effort to take forward the politics of the civil society through this, but it did not gain much currency. And the political parties, Awami League in particular, cannot tolerate them. Independent thinking is required in the circumstances. Discussion and debat is required to advance towards the truth.