What isn't possible alone can be achieved by strengthening several sides together. In electoral politics, the demonstration and use of this strength is very important.
In our country, the politics of alliances started in 1954. At that time, the ruling party was the Pakistan Muslim League. It had to be removed from power. Three parties united against it—the East Pakistan Awami Muslim League, the Krishak Sramik Party, the Pakistan Nezam-e-Islam Party, the Pakistan Democratic Party, and the Pakistan Khilafat-e-Rabbani Party. They formed the United Front.
The Communist Party supported them from behind. The Communist Party was banned then. Some members of this party contested as candidates of the United Front. There was a separate electoral system in the country. Some Communist leaders were also candidates in seats reserved for minorities. Besides, there were the Pakistan Congress and Tafsili Federation on the field. All their candidates were religious minorities. They stood in 'non-Muslim' seats. 'Non-Muslim' voters voted for them.
The Awami League was the largest party in the United Front. Besides this, there was an understanding with some other party leaders that the Awami League would practice secular politics if they won the election. The Awami League implemented this understanding a year later, in 1955, by removing the word 'Muslim' from the party's name.
The United Front achieved a landslide victory in the election. Out of 237 Muslim seats, candidates of the United Front won 228 seats. It was the first general election of the province under a party government, which was unprecedented. The ruling parties did not try to cheat. The chief leader of the ruling party, Chief Minister Nurul Amin, lost to the young Chhatra League leader Khalek Nawaz Khan.
The provincial election of 1954 was an example of how there can be a good election under a party government. However, it was the first and the last. Subsequently, no election under a party government was free and fair. Those in power have always influenced elections to snatch victory with gross power lust, low-level politics, and hooliganism.
The main factor behind the victory of the opposition parties in the 1954 election was their unity. There was little ideological similarity between those in this alliance. They agreed on one thing: the ruling parties had to be defeated. Due to the lack of ideological unity and cohesion, the United Front soon came to an end. Within a year, it collapsed and died. Then we saw a horrendous form of partisan politics. Instances of mutual slander, abuse, and even physical fights created a shameful precedent. Members of the provincial council physically assaulted and killed their Speaker, Shahed Ali. This stain cannot be erased.
After the independence of Bangladesh, we have been witnessing the politics of alliances. In the 1980s, during the movement against Ershad, there were two alliances—the 15-party alliance led by the Awami League and the 7-party alliance led by the BNP. Later, the 15-party alliance split into an 8-party and a 5-party alliance. Many parties within the coalition were ideologically opposed. They united over a single issue: the removal of Ershad. So, Ershad was removed. The scent of elections was in the air. The 5-party alliance made some noise for a national government for a while.
Both the Awami League and the BNP wanted to come to power alone. So no electoral alliance was formed. However, the Awami League and the BNP negotiated seats with their allies. The BNP got a quick benefit from this negotiation. A major share of the profit went to its ally, Jamaat-e-Islami. In the 2001 election, the BNP formed an electoral alliance with Jamaat and two other parties. Upon winning, an alliance government was formed. For the first time since 1954, the country saw an alliance government.
One thing is quite clear. In the elections that the BNP and Jamaat contested as an alliance or in coalition, they won every time. Whenever there was no alliance, they lost. One can understand the power and value of alliances by observing this.
Since 2008, there has been a 14-party alliance led by the Awami League. However, as the elections were not free and fair, these were not accepted. It was not a traditional alliance either. All the small partners in the alliance dissolved into the Awami League. Along with that, the entire state system was seized by the Awami League. They did not allow any opposition party to stand in the elections.
Another general election is approaching this year. There are only four weeks left. Currently, there are two visible alliances on the field. On one side, the BNP has finalised candidacy by negotiating seats with some allies of the July movement. Others there are secondary as parties. The BNP has ‘left’ a few seats for their few leaders. On the other hand, Jamaat-e-Islami has finalised seat distribution by forming an alliance with a few parties. So to speak, this is the traditional alliance.
Among the many partners in the two alliances, there are more differences than similarities. Ideologically, some of them are at opposite ends. This is also natural because the alliance or seat negotiation occurred to win the election. It is hard to say how long this understanding will last once the election is over. The winning side will form the government and distribute government positions and state facilities to keep the 'allies' intact. The side that loses might see cracks in their cohesion.
The alliance led by the BNP is likely to be more sustainable because, in this alliance, the BNP's position is like a mountain. Others are very small and weak. To protect their own existence, they may not want to come out of the alliance. On the other hand, in the Jamaat-led alliance, even though Jamaat has an overwhelming dominance, the others are not to be dismissed either. There are more leaders in this alliance, which means more problems.
Whichever alliance becomes the opposition, they will not let the ruling party rest. The tradition of 'agitational politics' that has developed in our country, makes it very difficult for any government to finish its term peacefully. Everyone has brought politics out onto the streets instead of keeping it within the parliament premises. Everyone wants all decisions to be made on the streets. 'We have not left the streets' is a resounding slogan of this era. Blocking roads with processions or sitting in, and besieging important offices whenever, has long been glorified. During speeches, all leaders, big or small, begin their talks with 'struggling brothers'. There’s no talk without struggle. The one who can deliver the most heated words in the loudest voice is considered the biggest struggling leader.
Despite many uncertainties, an election is approaching. Yet, it cannot be said with 100 per cent certainty. After February 12th, we can definitively say that an election has taken place in the country. I think the problem will start after that.
Politics is no longer under the control of the polite and the gentlemen. It has gone into the hands of extortionists and abusers. The one who can abuse the most gets the most applause. In the politics of applause, there is no place for good sayings.
#Mohiuddin Ahmad, Writer and Researcher
* Opinions expressed are those of the writer.
#This article, originally published in Print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam