It was 173 years ago that Karl Marx had said that events in history may repeat themselves, first as tragedy, then as farce. In the past too, the fate of Bengal had many times been determined by the West. If that occurs yet again, we will at least term that as a tragedy.
This is a tragedy for many reasons. Firstly, after exactly 10 months, the future of the mass uprising has become a matter of bargaining on personal and collective level. The people are no longer in the driver's seat regarding such matters, or at least that's what the "local" society feels.
The people of Bangladesh have a sharp political sense and understanding, and their strength of imagination is extensive too. The chitchat at the village tea stalls over the Eid holidays has already shifted rapidly from the business at the livestock markets to London, almost 8000 km away.
Though the ruling class of this region has long nurtured a penchant for travel and a love for London, the current London issue is especially intriguing. People suspect that much of the decision-making about when, why, and how the long-elusive national election will take place is happening this week in London. But can such “decisions” really be made so easily? Is Bangladesh’s ruling class skilled in the “art of compromise”?
Precedence of the recent past is not too encouraging. Bangladesh witnessed two bitter episodes, one in 2006 and the other in 2013, the consequences of which lingered all the way through to 2024.
This time, we’ve already carelessly let slip ten of the most promising and beautiful months in our political history. In just a few days, it will be the first anniversary of “36 July.” The tears of the bereaved have not dried, the laments continue. And yet the political forces seem to be more divisive and conflict-prone that even before “36 July.”
Over the past ten months, Bangladesh has ostensibly failed to make the kind of political progress that was expected. There have been no new achievements. There seems to be nothing new emerging from the womb of society. Meanwhile, policymakers, instead of acting as neutral guardians and assuaging differences among rival forces closer, are often doing quite the opposite.
Divisive politics have gained leverage instead of policies of reconciliation. As a result, administrative authorities are now having to bargain on behalf of certain sides in the political arena. Such a situation is ethically risky for the custodians of the state. This risk could further inflame the already heated political climate. As a side effect, there may soon be demands for reforms in the interim government. Politicians from various opposing camps have already called for the removal of several advisors.
It is quite possible that questions may arise concerning the competence and neutrality of this government in holding a free and fair election. For the time being, much depends on the outcome of the London chapter.
On the issue of reforms, almost all political parties, including the BNP, have already revealed much of their respective positions. There is apparently a pinch of consensus and a handful of differences. A “declaration” based on the points of agreement may be drafted next month, which is expected to be endorsed by the post-election parliament. Whether this will be enough to stop the ongoing “mob” is hard to say.
The fact that the poor are out of the picture for now, is reflected in the recent budget document. It can be said with certainty that this matter will not be an issue of discussion in London.
It hardly seems that this declaration holds much interest for the country's farmers, workers and professionals at the lower rungs. The question is, what else is there for the discussions in London? Why is this meeting so important and why is there so such avid interest in its outcome.
There are a lot of assumptions and analyses at the tea stalls in the towns and villages. Many are thinking about the political fate of the 36 July organisers and constitutional-administrative protection for their role at the time. Those thinking about such matters may want certain specific commitments from the future policymakers. The people may only get to know very little about how far consensus is reached on such matters and how wide the gap remains, but the general Bangladeshi's will adeptly deduce everything.
People’s speculations and imaginations race along as the post-uprising landscape continues to shift over these ten months. They are seeing, in light of reality and polarisation, the political gains and prospects of the July organisers are now at risk. It has taken them too long to grasp the difference between activism and parliamentary politics. In face of the election winds, they now squarely stand in front of a harsh reality.
Beyond this, once normal administrative and police operations resume in the future, several harsh issues from the time of the uprising and its aftermath will resurface. On such matters, there was room for separate discussions under the broader umbrella of reform dialogue. Gradually, for many people, these are becoming the more pressing concerns. Time is moving fast. Economic indicators are on a downward trend. And investors won’t loosen their purse strings until they see the full electoral roadmap.
The London meeting is crucial in avoiding all this. Its significance stems from at least two other reasons as well. First, if the structure of the election-time government is to be different, and if the interim government is somehow transformed, then what will its size and composition be? Who will it include? And what will be the scope of each person’s responsibilities?
Secondly, if the likely winners of the upcoming election go on to form a so-called national government as promised, questions arise: who will be allowed to be participate in that government, and to what extent? How will they evaluate and show respect toward the actions and performance of the interim government up to now? These questions, it seems, are already seeking certain commitments and assurances.
Considering all these factors, just as in the past, our political future may once again be shaped from London. For those who offered revolutionary interpretations of the mass uprising, such a scenario is far from comforting, but it is the reality.
Despite receiving immense public support, the best minds of civil society have brought us to this point. From here, it is up to the politicians to move Bangladesh forward. The upper and middle classes still prefer old “stability” over the risk of a failed state. The fact that the poor are out of the picture for now, is reflected in the recent budget document. It can be said with certainty that this matter will not be an issue of discussion in London.
* Altaf Parvez is a researcher of history