Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Behaviouralism focuses on the behaviour of individuals and groups while analysing politics and society. But people and groups do not operate in a vacuum. Numerous forces are at work in the political environment, including history, culture, tradition, norms and values of a society, which in turn greatly influence individual and group behaviour.
Contrary to accepted norms in developed societies where politics generally tend to focus on the welfare of peoples, societies and nations, politics in developing countries like Bangladesh mostly revolve around individual and group interests. Here, the words and deeds of political leaders often do not tally or converge in real life and personal and group interests frequently take precedence over social or national interests.
It is in this backdrop that the larger than life political icons like Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Ziaur Rahman, Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia hold sway in the minds of the Bangladeshi people and continue to mould public opinion in the urban and rural habitats of the country. The political ideologies, socio-economic orientations or actual performances of these icons while in government or in the opposition take a back-seat in the evaluation process and blind party-loyalty shapes the behaviour of political leaders and followers. This is quite in line with the 'Pir' or 'Guru' culture of the Indian subcontinent, which emphasises the inviolability of the 'Master' and asserts that 'he' or 'she' can never be wrong, whatever lesser mortals may think or say.
As in other countries of the world, the groups which dominate the political horizon and governance structure of Bangladesh are as follows: (a) civil and military bureaucracy; (b) various professional groups including workers, students, lawyers, teachers, businessmen and media-people; and (c) the political parties themselves. All these groups strive to expand their sphere of authority and influence as well as their share of spoils in the governance framework, which is characterised by unbridled greed, rampant corruption and widespread rent-seeking.
These dominant groups of the country take turn to assert their control over the state machinery, often by aligning with one another or by supporting or discrediting those at the helm of the state. As permanent employees of the state, the civil bureaucracy appears to be the most important arbiter of state-power. They always try to turn situations to their advantage and side with various contenders of state-power at different junctures of time by pulling strings through overt and covert means. They have demonstrated their aptitude at subverting governments during the Awami League rule of 1972-75, the bringing down of Ershad government in 1990, and the disgraceful exit of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government in 1996. They have also shown their acumen in political cronyism during the military dispensation of General Ershad in the 1980s, the BNP tenures of 1991-96, 2001-2006, and the Awami League periods of 1996-2001, 2009- till continuing.
Although the military bureaucracy in Bangladesh is by and large a professional force, they took over state-power twice during the 1970s and the 1980s. Their political ambitions depend both on the outlook and orientation of their leadership as well as the crises in governance and polity repeatedly faced by the country. Although they did not play any direct role in running the statecraft since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in the country in 1991, they undoubtedly exerted indirect influence on successive political governments because of their ascendancy in security and intelligence matters of the land. They were apparently viewed as the principal sponsor of the caretaker government at a time when emergency rule was in force in the country during 2007-2008.
Various professional groups also play a vigorous role in the political landscape of Bangladesh, mainly to obtain benefits and get a share in the spoils of statecraft. They often play the part of political workers in their respective arenas and succeed in creating rifts and divisions among the professionals by means of political polarisation.
The joining of hands by the politicians, the professionals and the civil bureaucracy allegedly gives rise to a phenomenon which may rightly be dubbed as 'syndicated political mafia'. This has given rise to over-politicisation in all sectors of society, economy and governance, where justice, ethics and fair-play are routinely sacrificed at the altar of political expediency, immorality and corruption.
The political parties in Bangladesh are mainly divided into two major camps, one led by the Awami League and the other by the BNP. Although they claim to represent centre-left and centre-right of the political spectrum, there is little to distinguish between the two in terms of state policies. Their difference mainly lies in their slogans, rhetoric and political icons. The leftist parties in Bangladesh are a disjointed lot and remain satisfied by toeing the lines of one party or another, mostly the Awami League. The Islamists, on the other hand, mostly prefer BNP to the Awami League. There is, therefore, no credible third force outside AL and BNP camps in the political landscape of Bangladesh.
The syndicates of political mafias have been found to be most dominant during the two and a half decades of 1991-2016, when the Awami League and the BNP took turns at the helm of state-power. It was during this period that Bangladesh rose in ranks to top the list of most corrupt countries in the world in 2001 (according to Corruption Perceptions Index of Berlin-based Transparency International) and remained at that position for consecutive five years. The greed for state-power coupled with intense hatred for the rivals nurtured by both the BNP and the Awami syndicates reached such a peak in 2006 that the scheduled 2007 parliamentary election became a 'do or die' affair for them. They were hell-bent not only to win the election but also to check the reappearance of their rivals at the helm of state-power by any means. They appeared to be even ready to welcome military intervention in order to prevent their rivals from assuming office once more.
This might have seemed an opportune moment to some stalwarts within the country's military establishment to play an active role in public affairs. The political stalemate and the concomitant street agitation-cum-violence surrounding the scheduled February-2007 parliamentary election provided them with the right excuse and a State of Emergency was therefore declared by the President on January 11, 2007.
The people of Bangladesh were hoping that a third political force would emerge in the country before or after the holding of Ninth Parliamentary Election, as a viable alternative to the Awami League or the BNP. But unfortunately that did not happen. Despite anti-corruption drives and crackdowns by the caretaker regime, both the Awami and pro-BNP 'pir-clans' and 'syndicates' seemed to remain intact even after two years of sustained onslaughts against them. The efforts of the caretaker establishment to bring about qualitative improvement in politics and political parties of the country also appeared to have borne little fruit. The countrymen were, therefore, once more faced with a 'Catch-22' situation. Advancement on the path of democracy in Bangladesh will have to be judged in the coming days in the context of the above realities.
Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed is a former editor of Bangladesh Quarterly.