Politics at a crossroads

People of this part of the world have, since colonial times, been dreaming of seeing their country as a modern, corruption-free, developed nation. But what is a modern, developed nation? The model before them was the nation states of Europe. But after the colonial powers left, the national leaders who took on the mantle of power failed to fulfil the people's dreams. People first  lost faith in the changes in government through elections as every elected government proved to be equally corrupt and inefficient in the 1950s when present-day Bangladesh was part of  then-Pakistan. Taking advantage of the failure of elected governments, the military took power and ran the show till 1970. The rest of the history every child knows as to how a politically independent Bangladesh was born. But nothing changed. The same old electoral games which demagogues played on the people's  sentiments, fears, false hopes and prejudices to somehow usurp state power. The post-independence Bangladesh saw bloody as well as peaceful elected governments.

The last such elected civilian government was the immediate-past one that  transformed into one of the worst autocracies the people of Bangladesh had ever experienced. So, the people over  the past decades had only voted governments into office or ousted them by force from power in the hope that the new one would finally be one that could bring the long-cherished changes  remaining free from corruption and greed. Now we have the  new political dispensation followed by a student-led popular political upsurge that replaced autocracy with the incumbent interim government led by its Chief Adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus. Now what does the public expect from this government formed in the wake of a bloody and popular upsurge?  Certainly, the men, women and children from all sections of society who fought  the autocracy to their last breath didn't make such sacrifces for nothing. It was, of course, not to start the same old, rotten game of politics to start all over again. People now wanted to see a qualitative change in politics. They wanted a government  free from the ills that again and again gave rise to anti-people, corrupt and inefficient  political systems and governments. To achieve this, they want a systemic overhauling in the vital organs of the state. Most importantly, the existing administrative setup, which is a legacy of the British colonial period, should go through radical reform. The interim government has its main agenda of reforming major institutions of governance and, for the purpose, formed commissions to recommend the required reforms.

The idea is to restructure the major institutions of governance that are inherently corrupt. The major such institutions include the constitution, the public administration, the judiciary, the police,  the anti-corrupton commission  and the election commission. True, it is not conceivable that a government riding the wave of a popular upsurge would be able to fix an old, moth-eaten system overnight. Moreover, it has not also promised as such. In fact,  political systems change through long phases of trial and error.  As it happened over the centuries in Europe. Societies there were luckier in some respects in that they at the same time also  produced great social thinkers who came up with new ideas about state and its governance.  Unfortunately, in Bangladesh's, or for that matter, the entire post-colonial sub-continent's case, no such thinker, say, like the English John Locke, Scottish David Hume, French Voltaire,  or Genevan Enlightenment philosopher  Russueau  was born to show new ways to build society and politics.  But there were also not many local thinkers who could come up with a proper guide that new, post-colonial generations of  social change agents could be inspired by and follow. There were, however, occasional attempts at building revolutionary parties of the working class in the style of Leninist communist party of Russia or Mao-led Chinese communist party and bring about  a revolutionary change in society.  But those attempts in general failed to build their revolutionary politics based  on the history and culture of local people. Worse yet, some even started it by outright rejection of local beliefs, values and cultures. Obviously, the mass people, too, rejected them. In some cases, revivalist nationalist politics, which, too, is a European phenomenon, struck root in local soil in the form of religious or cultural nationalism. These are, however, the most odious forms of nationalism that are based on hatred of other cultures and religions. Recently, on both shores of the Atlantic, such racist-and-culturual supremacy-based politics is on the rise. As it happened in the case of other kinds of western ideas, euphemistically termed   identity-politics, too, has raised its head across the subcontinent. Amid this  maelstrom of political ideas,  the post-uprising Bangladesh has been experimenting with the idea of a government  that is a restructured, if not a revolutionary,  versions of the  existing state institutions.

Hence is the debate on reforms. Existing, traditional political parties, however, think it should be business as usual. The interim government, in their view, should finish their reform job as soon as possible and leave the rest for them to complete. But the younger generation who gave their all to  bring about the current political change won't listen to that. Hence is the ongoing controversies and street marches surrounding various issues and demands. But there lies  danger in such developments. The youth, whatever their political ideas, are , to all appearance, on a collision  course with the rest of socio-political and state-institutions. Rather, there should start a dialogue across the board. What has to be accepted by all  traditional and post-upsurge generation of political forces is that the post-interim government politics of the country is not going to be business as usual. Even if any attempt is made to return to the old style of politics- election-based politics dominated by musclemen and goons-then we are in for a bigger, bloodier socio-political unrest in the future. So, a dialogue between the traditional and the emergent forces of change is essential. The old should come forward to meet the new. 

sfalim.ds@gmail.com