While walking on the road, many things catch the eye. The Aman paddy has been harvested. The mustard fields are turning yellow. Heavy fog falls like curtains in the early morning. The cold has settled in with the northern winds. Amid this, familiar banners are hanging from trees, lamp posts, and shops. People eager for public service are making it known that they will soon take to the field.
I don't know when the election will take place. Discussions, debates, and protests are ongoing. Some parties want the election to be held immediately, while others prefer delay a bit. Why the hurry? Our house is broken and fragile. It needs repairing first.
The situation is clear. Those who hope to win the election can't wait. Many want to prepare first. Those who have nothing to lose aren't bothered if the election is delayed. The interim government says the election date will be decided based on the consensus of political parties. It seems impossible that the politicians will reach a consensus.
When the Jatiya Sangsad (National Parliament) existed, we saw remarkable consensus on a few issues among all the parties. These issues mostly revolved around their own worldly gains—such as increasing the salaries and allowances of MPs and importing cars without duties. Many MPs walked out of parliamentary sessions for various reasons, and there are numerous examples of continuous parliamentary boycotts. Once, opposition members left the parliament and returned two years later, having won the election. However, despite the country's numerous problems, no one ever walked out in protest against proposals that would benefit only themselves.
The constitution of the country and its political culture have created a 300-member "owners' club." The number of people trying to join this club is overwhelming. Predictions about a potential election in the dry season of 2025–2026 are in the air, but no decisions have been made yet. However, the country is already covered in banners, which might eventually turn into visual propaganda.
The nature of the banners is similar. At the top corner, the images of the party's main owner and their family members are displayed in circles. Below that, there is a large picture of one individual. This person, so deeply concerned about the development of the area, cannot sleep at night. They are greeting everyone with a salute. Below, smaller images of a few others are shown, with captions like "In collaboration with X" or "Struggling activist Y." If the person with the large image becomes an MP, these struggling activists will likely get tickets to enter the union and upazila parishads. Even if they don't, there is no harm. Development is all around. A few contracts here and there will make them thrive.
In some places, a struggling brother or sister from a party's ward, union, municipality, or upazila committee is contesting for a position. They seek everyone's blessings. In some localities, party committees are forming. But there is no time for blessings. What is happening instead is chair-throwing, physical fights, breaking the stages, and even breaking the limbs of opponents. Even the police can't stop it. For the first time in this country, I saw the police acting like people and the people acting like the police.
Ahead of the election, money flies in the air. In economic terms, this is called relocation or money transfer. Money shifts from one group of people to another. Some employment is created as a result. Unemployed youths earn a bit by blasting their horns for a couple of months. Once they get into the parliament building, their investment returns manifold, with interest and profit. We know that for various reasons, our country is not very investment-friendly. But in the election, investment is highly profitable. Once a person becomes an MP, he or she becomes extremely wealthy. The National Board of Revenue (NBR) has no medicine to stop or control this.
Why are they so eager for public service? Yes, the right to serve the public is a fundamental right. But does that make the election indispensable? Can public service not be done without an election? It's true that if elected, one can provide more service using the state's machinery and public funds. At the same time, the golden wand of self-service is also within reach. That's why so much effort and investment go into getting a ticket for the election. This is the general scenario, though there are exceptions.
Now, let's talk about the "owners' club." Even if there are 300 members, they too have their own owners. The owner of the party decides who stays in the party, who doesn't, and who gets nominated as a parliamentary candidate. A loyal circle of followers surrounds them. These followers engage in extensive business when it comes to nominating candidates for elections.
To ensure the party owner maintains absolute control, our constitutional experts have come up with an infallible solution—Article 70. The axe of power will fall due to a slight misstep. This ensures personal ownership within the party and family or group ownership in the parliament.
Some argue that without Article 70, MPs will be bought and sold, destabilising the system. After the 1954 election, such a situation arose in the Provincial Assembly of East Pakistan. One day a cabinet was formed, and by evening, it was dissolved and replaced with another. The question is, why would a party give a ticket to someone who is known to engage in buying and selling? And why would people vote for such a person? How can a party function if it doesn't trust its own members?
The fear of political buying and selling still exists. We remember in 1986, during Ershad's regime, when five members of the Communist Party of Bangladesh, allies of the Awami League, won with the boat symbol. Later, two of them joined BNP. In 1996, when the Awami League formed the government, they bought two BNP MPs and made them ministers. A few years ago, Awami League president Sheikh Hasina said, "Everyone can be bought, but I cannot be bought." There are two truths in this statement: one, her party members are available for sale; two, she cannot be bought because she is the owner.
As the election nears, new situations will arise. Politics will become increasingly violent. Those desperate for the party ticket will clash with each other. Showdowns, fights, and even killings will take place. Once the ticket is secured, they will engage in conflict with the opposing party's candidates. This will involve disrupting each other's rallies, fighting, and even killing. This has been going on for five decades. The election will not bring a festive atmosphere but will be a source of fear.
A major upheaval has occurred in the country. Thousands have lost their lives, and even more have been injured. No leader has died. At political rallies, they boast of sacrificing their lives but refuse to compromise on their demands. Leaders don't die. For the nation's sake, they must remain safe. Ordinary people are the collateral for the movements.
The same familiar faces keep appearing in meetings, gatherings, and banners. Despite all the movements, rebellions, and sacrifices, their language and behaviour haven't changed. There is ongoing debate: What happened in August, an uprising or a revolution? Everyone is interpreting it in their own way. But has the nature of politicians changed?
*Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher