When Professor Muhammad Yunus took over as the head of the interim government, there was a collective sigh of relief all over the country. A man of such calibre! He was never involved in politics (actually he had once made a move in that direction, but it didn't work out. He realised that politics wasn't for him and avoided proceeding in that direction again). The people wanted this. I don't know about other countries, but here the people are not too fond of politics or politicians, even though they rush to them in times of crisis.
What sort of man can Professor Yunus be defined as? He is an international celebrity. He is a man of high stature, a man of considerable intellect. He loves to dream and to nurture dreams. Reforming Bangladesh had been his dreams. Speaking to the foreign press, he has repeatedly said, and continues to say, once the reforms are done, he will go back to his previous work. Journalists asked him about his thoughts concerning politics in the future.
He replied in no uncertain terms that he will not be involved in politics in the future. I have been reiterating this ever since he took over responsibility. As a politician, has it been prudent of me to give the head of the country such an important certificate? Perhaps not. Politics, after all, is a complex matter. There are many men, many minds here. Democracy means respecting everyone's opinion and then drawing up policies and running the country in accordance to the majority. It is no easy task. As it is, people's brains are the most complex and developed matter. Needless to say, it is an arduous task to take into cognizance and synthesise the views of millions of people.
Does Professor Yunus have a complex mind? Who knows? No one really knows what is in a person's mind. As an admiring student, as far as I can tell, he is not like that. Can he perceive complexities and deviousness? Can he handle such matters? I don't think so. Rather, in this regard, he could be given a score of zero.
When he returned to the country after 5 August, he said at the airport, "You have to listen to me or I will leave." He said this laughingly, not as a threat, but he certainly was no diplomatic. Having travelled the world over as the head of Grameen Bank, have met with so many important persons and leaders, one would expect a bit more diplomacy. I have often said that Professor Yunus has an endearing manner of speaking. One listens with rapt attention when he speaks. Yet he is unwilling to speak when it comes to politics. But speak he must.
Yes, readers, I am referring to the London meeting. On the eve of the dialogue, BNP's secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said that it was Professor Yunus who wanted to speak to the BNP acting chairman Tarique Rahman. Now everyone believes that what Mirza Fakhrul has said is true. It was at Professor Yunus' behest that this dialogue was held and he lost in the dialogue.
Let me explain. It is not prudent to just say whatever comes to the mind. We are at such a juncture when it is not that important as to whether a leader or party has won. More important is whether democracy has won, whether the country has won.
We are really standing at crossroads of Bangladesh's history, or more appropriately, at Bangladesh's democratic history. Jamaat, NCP and a couple of other parties were piqued that the government took such an important decision regarding the time of election in consultation with just one political party and sidestepped protocol by issuing a joint statement in this regard. In protest, Jamaat boycotted one meeting of the consensus commission.
I agree with the sentiment of Jamaat and the other couple of political parties in this regard. This decision could have been taken by reaching out to everyone, I feel. This is a failure to understand on the part of the government, or simply their ignorance about political strategy.
Just even days before that the chief advisor had said that other than one party, everyone was in consensus about the election being held in April (in order words, he was blaming BNP for creating the disorder). And then he went around to fix the election date in February, consulting then alone! Rather childish, what?
One
Our party, Nagorik Oikya, or even our alliance Ganatantra Mancha, was not taken into consideration by the government in any way, but we didn’t go make a fuss over the matter. We felt that this government does not know how to value such sentiments. The deterioration in relations between the government and BNP regarding the timing of the election could have become dangerous. The London dialogue has averted that danger. The ice of the cold war that had begun to form has melted. The public doubt about whether the election would happen or not has been dispelled. I see this as a turning point.
Now political parties must show greater patience, tolerance, and practice humility, reason, restraint, and mutual respect in their speech. Many points of contention or arguments can certainly be created, but that will yield no benefit, only harm. To overthrow fascism and establish a democratic state, there is no alternative to an acceptable and quality election. After that election, this government will no longer have any legitimacy.
That is why fighting this government now is like fighting a shadow. The encouraging part is that, aside from minor disagreements, the political parties are not doing that. The support they extended to this interim government on 8 August still remains intact.
Two
After the London meeting, the ice has started to melt. But has it completely melted? That cannot really be said with certainty. That's not how things run. Politics is always dynamic and full of contradictions. There will inevitably be differences of opinion and conflict. That is all the more true when the stakes are power or elections. Just look at the situation in Dhaka South City Corporation. The government and BNP’s Dhaka South units are in direct confrontation. What’s happening there can hardly be considered healthy. It’s a display of force and stubbornness. Yet, after the London meeting, a spirit of compromise was expected.
In that meeting, particularly from the government’s side, it was said that while announcing the election timeline, they hoped to see visible progress in three areas. The question is: from whom is the government expecting progress? The responsibility lies primarily with the government. Of course, the government can expect full cooperation from political parties in matters of reform and the drafting of the July Charter.
Since 17 June, the consensus commission has entered its second phase of discussions with political parties regarding reforms. The parties have agreed that opposition representatives will chair a few standing committees in parliament, and there is consensus on Article 70 reforms. This is a positive step forward.
We will be able to overcome the obstacles and differences of opinion that lie ahead and continue to move forward. We will be able to take the necessary steps and make the necessary decisions to reach the foothills of democracy
However, there is still no resolution on differing opinions regarding the president, the Upper House elections, and the tenure of the prime minister. It has been said that discussions will continue. In the previous day's meeting, no consensus was reached regarding the constitutional council.
Additionally, although there is agreement to increase the number of women members from 50 to 100, there has been no decision on how these 100 will be elected. It’s clear that the question of forming an Upper House in parliament remains unresolved. And that means the broader question of establishing a bicameral parliament also remains unsettled.
At this moment, perhaps the most crucial issue for the government is the July Charter. The mass student uprising that took place last July will be commemorated this year by drafting the charter based on national consensus. Professor Yunus himself has told foreign stakeholders that the charter will definitely be adopted this July.
I have seen in the newspapers that the protagonists of the July uprising are all concerned about their own safety. The forces overthrown in the July uprising who have fled the country, are involved in all sorts of ulterior plot abroad, to get back they lost empire. That threat exists.
Will there be a July Charter based on consensus? Differences of opinion among those who were part of the July Movement have become apparent and that is only natural. The political parties are separate and that’s why they have differing views. At a historic moment, they united against fascism in response to the nation’s collective need. A year has passed since then. Now, politics will naturally begin to revolve around their own differences. Added to that is the upcoming national election, which is primarily a matter of competition and rivalry, of one side winning by defeating the other. That is why the apprehensions do not go away, the anxiety doesn’t subside.
Will the election be held properly? It’s not possible to say anything with certainty, or to predict the future, nor is that appropriate in politics. There are too many variables. Even so, we have come a long way. I believe that we will be able to overcome the obstacles and differences of opinion that lie ahead and continue to move forward. We will be able to take the necessary steps and make the necessary decisions to reach the foothills of democracy.
* Mahmudur Rahman Manna is president of Nagorik Oikya
* The opinions are the writer’s own