Self-complacency and irresponsible talks may threaten democracy
Abdul Gaffar choudhury
There is currently a lull in the politics of Bangladesh. Our civil society is not vocal like before. BNP is engaged in internal quarrel. Jamaat is not very active either. There is no big event in the country except the killing of bloggers by the extremists. It seems that Hasina government has crossed the danger period. The scale of success of present government is high. They have won the case over the sea boundary and their recent treaty with India over land boundary was hailed as a historic success.
The growth of our GDP is better than India according to Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen. Our foreign currency reserve is comfortable. In this season we have a booming production in the agricultural sector. The country will be on surplus food production. It is expected that the country is gradually overcoming many of its big problems.
For this laudable success the credit must go to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Her courage, patriotism, and relentless service to the country placed her in the present position. The country wants to recognise her achievement and honour her in a ceremony. A reception on a Grand National scale for the Prime Minister is going to be held on 29th May in Dhaka. She deserves this honour from the people irrespective of their party affiliations for her undaunted courage and her love for the country.
This country was called by foreigners like Henry Kissinger, a bottomless basket. Hasina removed this stigma and made Bangladesh economically almost self-dependent. Now Bangladesh is not afraid of the pressure from any superpowers or even World Bank. They can take decision on a big problem, on their economic strength. In the past Bangladeshs presence in South Asian politics was negligible. Now her presence in the theatre of South Asian politics is prominent and even recognised by her big neighbour. It is a great achievement for a small Asian country and Sheikh Hasina should get the credit for this success and achievement.
But this lull produced by the success of the government has its downsides also; the party in power and its government should not ignore this. Now there is apparently no big challenge or threat for the party in power. This has created a mood of self-complacency among a section of Awami League leaders, ministers and MPs. The natural alertness for a democratic party which survived many political storms has now lost their alertness and vigilance about any challenge or threat which may crop up suddenly and attack them when they are off-guard.
Generally people lose their alertness when they suffer from self-complacency. They indulge in irresponsible talks and activities. When danger comes suddenly like a bolt from the blue they cannot confront it.
I can cite an example of this type of political blunder from the Ayub era in Pakistan. Ayub took over state power and ousted all the leading politicians of the-then West Pakistan from politics. But leaders like Shaheed Suhrawardi, Fazlul-Huq, Khawaja Nazimuddin were still alive in the-then East Pakistan and Ayub used to consider them as a challenge to his absolute power. In the early 60s these leaders died one after another and Miss Fatima Jinnah, the sister of the founder of Pakistan, who contested unsuccessfully for the president ship with Ayub also suddenly died and Ayub suddenly found himself a dictator without any opponent.
Ayubs hand-made party Convention Muslim League became self-complacent and lost their vigilance to guard their power. In a conference Convention League made a proposal that Ayub should be the Life-long President of Pakistan. Every crony of Ayub supported this proposal but Ayub himself opposed it. He said, Everything is not okay in the other part of the country. Though he was a military dictator, Ayub was a shrewd politician also. He realised that the death of three national leaders in the Eastern wing of Pakistan did not lessen the threat for his dictatorship.
Though he neutralised Maulana Bhashani, a more dangerous challenge from him was growing very rapidly in East Pakistan. A courageous young leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not timid like his predecessors and took an uncompromising stand on the question of the rights and authority of his people. Ayub vetoed the proposal for his life-long Presidentship and very soon his farsightedness was proved.
Then a sudden stormy wind started blowing in the subcontinent. A war started between India and Pakistan on 6th September, 1965 and lasted for 17 days. With the mediation by former Soviet Union a peace treaty was signed between the two warring countries but Ayub could not save himself from the wrath of his countrymen. An anti-Tashkent treaty movement started in the West Wing of the country under the leadership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and in the Eastern-Wing Sheikh Mujibur came out with self-rule of Bengalis with his historic 6 points demand.
Very quickly Ayub put Sheikh Mujibur in prison with an allegation of treason but a mass uprising freed the young leader from prison and within a very short period Ayub had to resign. I am not comparing this example of Ayub era with present situation of Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina is not a military dictator like Ayub and Awami League is not a hand-made party of a dictator like Convention Muslim League. But the self-complacency among a section of Awami leaders and ministers reminds me of the last events of Ayub era.
Awami League should take lesson from history. Some of them are now behaving like the leaders of Ayubs political party and suggesting that Hasina should follow suit of Mahathir of Malaysia. Mahathir curtailed democratic rights of people for combatting corruption and speedy economic reconstruction. The implication of this saying is that for present economic development of Bangladesh some cuts in democratic procedure is necessary. This is irresponsible talk and these type of utterances may create sudden dangerous situation for the party in power and their government.
There was a conspiracy to oust this government from power by an anti-people alliance. To foil this conspiracy Hasina had to take strong measures which might seem a deviation from democratic path which can be compared with a measure like state of emergency. It is always a temporary step. That does not mean when a government for some obvious reasons could not follow democratic path 100% they weaken the democratic institutions.
I also cited in some of my previous articles the examples of Lee Kuan of Singapore and Mahathir of Malaysia. For the greater interest of the country they curtailed some democratic rights of the people but did not destroy the democratic institutions of the country. That is why when they left power in their respective countries they could transfer power to those institutions and democracy survived.
In Bangladesh the political situation is different from those two Asian countries. Democracy was very fragile and every time it was defeated by anti-people autocratic forces. Autocracy was always helping the violent fundamentalism to dominate the countrys political life. This is the first time when under Sheikh Hasina democracy took a very strong and resilient stand and for the sake of this stand the democratic procedure was disturbed in some places.
The very foundation of democracy was not harmed, but for this measure it did not face the defeat in the hands of the enemy of the people. This is for the first time democracy fought well and survived a bigger conspiracy.
But where Awami League has failed to ensure the final victory of democracy is, in their inability to strengthen the democratic institutions of the country. This country is still under the thumb of bureaucracy and the new rich class. Sheikh Hasinas leadership is the only stronghold of democracy as she is the head of the government. But if for any reason she is not in power the whole edifice of present democracy will collapse and the anti-people forces will again capture state-craft and destroy the very foundation of its independence.
If there are strong democratic institutions in the country it is not easy for any anti-democratic axis to defeat or destroy it. In India democratic institutions are strong and unharmed for the last 68 years and it has withheld all the onslaughts on it. Even a communal party like BJP came to power more than once replacing Congress, but could not disturb its democratic base.
In Bangladesh Hasina Government may not pursue 100 % democratic process to combat anti-democratic forces at the moment but if they do not neglect the democratic institutions and make them strong like Singapore and Malaysia then there will be no fear for the safety of democracy in Bangladesh and a strong democracy will defeat all the conspiracies against it.
London: Friday 22nd May, 2015
