As I was crossing through Hatirjheel I received the message on my mobile phone, "Meeting at 1pm." I was taken aback as this was not expected. It was a meeting with the United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres. The special assistant to the chief advisor informed me over phone (15 March) that the meeting was to be held at 1:30 at Hotel Intercontinental. The foreign ministry also informed me of this and asked me to confirm my attendance. I did so and started off for the meeting accordingly. It was now 12:45pm and this message popped up. I called Ms Khan of the UN mission in Dhaka and told her about the traffic condition, saying that I would be late. She said that it was a bit of a tight schedule but she would manage to get me in.
There was a certain suspense. After all, this was the UN secretary general. I used to have the same feeling of suspense when it came to Nobel laureate too. But after seeing Professor Yunus so often (and I knew him from before he won the Nobel), that has become almost commonplace now. But not so in the case of the UN secretary general. I was told that the six selected persons would get to speak around two to three minutes each. I would be given that rare opportunity too. I may be 75 years old, but a thrill ran through me. What would I speak about? Was there any particular issue, I asked. I was told to speak about the reforms to be undertaken.
The meetings and discussions are over now and Antonio Guterres is back in his workplace. I feel now that this meeting had been summoned to apprise the UN secretary general about the reforms that were being undertaken. That is why the heads of the reforms commission had been summoned. Political party leaders had been called. They spoke on reforms. You would have read in the media about who said what. I didn't say much because I felt our government wanted Antonio Guterres to take away an idea of the qualitative democracy we were wanting to construct in the country.
I did not take this negatively. After all, the United Nations had taken a strong stand against the brutality of the fascists. The manner in which the commission headed by Volker Turk had revealed to the global community the massacre unleashed by Sheikh Hasina, took our struggle to international heights.
The UN secretary general said they would support Bangladesh's reform processes to construct democracy in Bangladesh. When I read this speech, I wondered how he would provide support. Huge funds were not required for reforms. Yes, we would need advice and recommendations for proper running of the reforms. What advance would Guterres give us from all the way in New York?
At the end of the meeting, the UN secretary general said I want to assist you in your reforms, but I do not want to give you advice. It is for you to carry out the reforms. How you will do it, when will you do it -- it is for you to decide. If you need help at any time, then we will help you.
Like Professor Yunus, Antonio Guterres also spoke about a national consensus. But the differences of opinion clearly surfaced on 15 March at that meeting. BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, in a rather distraught tone, said it hasn't been very clear why this meeting was held. As before, the BNP leader had upheld the election as the most important issue. But Jamaat spoke differently. And the newly formed NCP spoke of reforms by means of a constituent assembly election. They felt unless this was done, the reforms would not be sustainable.
I did not speak about these matters. As I said, I do not think the UN secretary general was at this meeting to hear all this. He wanted to see a national consensus. I said that despite our differences I felt that we could reach a consensus to construct a durable democracy.
The government will take up reforms on as many issues that the political parties reach a consensus. This idea of Professor Yunus is very pragmatic and democratic. But what he is now saying is quite confusing.
I hope that the confusion is cleared by very soon
Let me talk about something a bit different, but relevant. In my last column, ' What’s ahead? How far is the national election?', I had written a confusion had been created with Professor Yunus saying that the election would be held in December this year or March next year or even in June.
Many ask me, when will the election actually take place? Many even ask, will there actually be an election? On 16 March I saw in a daily newspaper that the Jamaat amir Shafiqur Rahman has said during his speech at an iftar event that the head of government has already spoken about the election. Hopefully he will make the matter clearer soon. Then the nation will be hopeful. The parties will be able to prepare their election plans accordingly.
The chief adviser will surely get the opportunity to make things clear. But in the meantime, he was repeated himself. Two days ago he said, if the political parties want minor reforms, then the election can be held in December this year. And if they want major reforms, then the election can be held in June next year.
The matter isn't clear to anyone. What are minor reforms and what are major reforms? Six reforms commissions posed 166 questions before the political parties. Are minor reforms to be identified from this? How? If the political parties only reach a consensus on 30 of the 166 questions, will that means they want minor reforms? If they want reforms on 100 of these, does that mean they want major reforms?
Till now there has been nothing said about major or minor reforms in the proposals given by the government so far.
Professor Yunus had said at one time, "We will carry out as many reforms upon which the political parties reach a consensus. The remaining will be carried out by the next government or parliament. I will not impose anything on anyone."
What did he mean by this? This isn't a matter of imposition. It is a process. The government will take up reforms on as many issues that the political parties reach a consensus. This idea of Professor Yunus is very pragmatic and democratic. But what he is now saying is quite confusing.
I hope that the confusion is cleared by very soon.
* Mahmudur Rahman Manna is president, Nagorik Oikya
* This column appeared in the print an online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir