Being harassed while accessing services at an office which handles money, utterly frustrated a commercial firm consultant recently. Educated at home and abroad, this young woman wonders why the state system doesn’t work at a digital pace even now!
Some fellows of her generation question the grounds on they shall have to live in a city plagued by the world’s worst air pollution. Their perception of the country’s education and healthcare services, as well as the job market situation, has been further frustrating, a state of mind that has reverberated in the processions of outbound people.
These youngsters are hardly interested in the discussion on what kind of political steps should be taken or social movement waged, to correct the situation. Solution to social issues, they might believe, is possible without political decisions. Many of them say without any hesitation, ‘I hate politics’.
This approach of today’s youth has been a dominant social phenomenon, which means its proclaimers volunteer to surrender their change-making authority, and that too, to the unwanted elements! They have not been asked either as to why they hate politics, let alone engaging in debates on why the citizens deserve a welfare state.
This generation called ‘Zoomers’ or ‘Gen Z’ (those who were born between 1997 and 2012) has so far been involved in the safe road movement of 2018, which saw its end through attacks by criminals wearing helmets. The demonstrations by the ‘Millennials’ (1981-1996) or ‘Y’ were obviously aimed at realising group interests – demanding reforms in quota system in civil service and withdrawal of tax imposed on private universities.
Their preceding generations, the post-World War II ‘Baby Boomers’ (1946-1964) and ‘X’ (1965 and 1980), have both the glorious tradition of leading and joining popular movements. Ironically, once the opportunistic ones among them witness irregularities on the roads, in the market, or at government or private offices, they asked clichéd questions: 'What is this these happening?' ' Is there none to look after these?'
It is as if an alien avatar from any other planet would come and remove these irregularities. Since they have to show a ‘civil’ image socially, they just say so in such a manner that does not anger their masters.
The narratives of political thinking in the 1960s often transcended parochial personal interest, perhaps opposite to the current trends. In his inaugural address as President, John F Kennedy, quoting poet Kahlil Gibran, said: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.’ Such a country should have belonged to millions like ‘you’, not the handful of embezzlers of billions of dollars.
The tail of ‘X’ and major portion of ‘Y’ have been, unfortunately, used as pawns of the game of depoliticisation. The ‘Gen Z’ youngsters joined the process somewhat innocently. The loyal customers from the trio are busy using gadgets, eating out, working at their jobs and meeting lifestyle demands – what’s the use of dreaming big for them! This scheme was orchestrated by invisible hands but caried out mainly by the ‘Baby Boomers’ (and a small portion of ‘X’). The laboratory of thinking and karma of the four generations has now been found in Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET).
The heyday of student politics not just produced the language movement, struggle for independence and democratic awakening, the slogans on the campus also exerted constant pressure on the criminal and corrupt elements
After Abrar Fahad was beaten to death reportedly by the cadres of student organisation Chhatra League in 2019, the BUET authorities had banned ‘student politics’ on the campus. As the League leaders recently staged a showdown on the BUET campus, the ‘general students’ protested against this move. Innumerable opinions came in favour of keeping politics banned on campus. Amidst debates, the High Court issued a ruling for resuming student politics there. Most of the opinion leaders have somehow missed one critical point – the incident of 2019 was a killing, the outcome of terrorist acts. Possible presence of followers of different ideologies could have resulted in different political culture there.
However, the student politics in this part of the world met with unwanted death years ago. Over the decades, there had been a practice of holding ‘student union’ at colleges and universities, to help flourish leadership among young minds. Almost none of that election was held after the mid-1990s and that also ended the culture of coexistence of student organisations of diverse ideologies. The campus has since then turned into the ‘kingdom’ of the lone student body aligned with the ruling party.
The heyday of student politics not just produced the language movement, struggle for independence and democratic awakening, the slogans on the campus also exerted constant pressure on the criminal and corrupt elements. When there was active opposition in parliament for about two decades since 1991, there was state platform for raising voice against the excesses committed by the powerful ones. There was right as well to public those reports on the mass media until then.
The kind of politics, that is required for attaining the aspirations of the ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ generations now, has also died before the eyes of all of us. Thus, the dream of building a pluralist society and governance with accountability has been half-dead.
This process of alienating the people including politics of diverse opinions from the system of ruling the country is defined as depoliticisation by political scientists. It was launched at external dictation through the joint venture of a section of politicians and civil and military bureaucracy and business oligarchs. As Bertrand Russel said of fascism, it first ‘fascinates the fools’ and then ‘muzzles the intelligent’.
The politicisation process has created such a sterile situation in which even the dedicated politicians are struggling to secure active support from the masses. At least 95 per cent people want the right to vote but they are hesitant on joining the processions with this demand. Willing to see an end to the regime of corruption, the educated class in general is unable to prove a dissenting voice. The moneyed men expect prosperous life but are not ready to pay social price for creating a congenial atmosphere. The middle class prefers safety and security, but primarily for their families.
Sufferers, however, have realised how limited is the scope for fulfilling the dream of the people outside the realm of power in a society devoid of vibrant politics. Therefore, you can score no point by hurling the words ‘I hate politics’; instead, that statement benefits others.
It would be another stream of politics if you take the initiative to change your collective fate. You would then need to learn from the mistakes (and achievements) of the predecessors. You would have to study political history, no matter which generation you belong to. What you need to protect the state for your quality living is the developed version of what you hate.
For the sake of self-criticism, instances of mistakes in national and student politics may be cited here. In the case of student politics, a leader or activist got involved with organizational activities without considering how to continue studies properly. And a politician was clueless about what his/her profession or the source of earning would be while doing politics. As a result, in the face of the dominance of money and power that tends to corrupt, their politics turned largely irrelevant.
What could be, in your views, the alternative to the trend of politics you hate? Since the young people aspire to become leaders, they can better present themselves to people with better leadership skills and approach. We would like to hope that each newcomer would offer a different, unique political persona. If you want to pursue leadership in any other sectors, you would still need correction of politics, to get a congenial atmosphere and system of governance. There is no room for selfishness in this world.
Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist.