BY ZAFAR SOBHAN
The dilemma of writing for a monthly magazine is that
between the time we go to press and the time this issue hits the stands it
is almost impossible to predict what kind of state the country will be in.
The Awami League (AL) has said that it will shut down the
country from November 12 if the demands that it tabled on November 3 are
not met. Just about the only thing that is certain in Bangladeshi politics
is that their demands will not be met within the stipulated time frame.
Even with the best intentions of the council of advisers,
it does not seem that there is any easy way out of the impasse with
respect to the reconstitution of the Election Commission, to say nothing
of the changes in administrative and police personnel that are needed for
free and fair elections. But where we will be on November 15 is anyone’s
guess.
On October 28, the AL launched its programme of violence
all across the country and was met with equal ferocity by Bangladesh
Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat (-e-Islami) cadres. The fighting seemed
inconclusive at the time, in part perhaps because of the strong police
support for the BNP and Jamaat cadres, but it was very unclear where
things would have headed had the programme not been brought to an end on
the night of the 29th.
In the end, good sense prevailed after the president
himself took over as chief adviser.
Once it was a fait accompli the AL took the decision that
there was little point in pursuing its programme of agitation, though one
wonders whether it would have made the same decision had Justice Hasan
(formerly associated with the BNP) accepted the post.
Nevertheless, since the demand had been for Hasan not to
be chief adviser, once the president had installed himself the AL was able
to pull back and if its stated reason, that it wished to give him a chance
before making a decision on his acceptability, seemed disingenuous, most
people were happy enough that things had calmed down to allow them this
face-saving fiction.
Of course, accounts that the army was primed to come in to
restore law and order must have had much to do with the decision.
By the time this inaugural issue of Forum comes to
market we will know whether this same sequence of events has happened
again. There is a chance that the AL will give it some more time, but as
of the time of writing, this seems a slender reed to pin one’s hopes on.
There was a great deal of anger in the party with the original decision to
pull back and so it seems as though that this time around the hardliners
would have the upper hand.
The question is where this will lead. Clearly, the AL
would again be met in the streets by BNP and Jamaat cadres, but what will
happen then, and whether this will precipitate any kind of army
intervention to keep the peace, I cannot predict (you will know by the
time you are reading this).
One thing that I would like to address here, though, is
the issue of political violence and who bears the blame for both the
violence that we have already seen and for any deterioration in the
situation that may have occurred or may be likely to occur in the near
future, including potential intervention by the army.
We are all appalled at the violence of October 28 and 29.
But one thing that it is important to recognise is that, contrary to the
perception in some circles, both sides of the political divide bear
responsibility for the violence perpetrated then.
While it is true that the unrest would not have been
precipitated had the AL not launched its programme, it should also be
acknowledged that when one side uses undemocratic means with which to hold
onto power then this narrows the range of options left open to those who
dissent.
How did we get here in the first place? We got here
primarily due to the immediate last elected government’s apparent
determination to ensure that there would be no level playing field for a
free and fair election.
The second point that needs to be made about the recent
violence is that the BNP and Jamaat cadres were equally to blame for the
carnage, if not more so. They had determined to meet the AL in the streets
and came with firearms, and many of the severely wounded and dead were
from the AL side. Blame for the recent carnage must therefore be
apportioned between both sides.
It should be noted that the agitation began while the
houses and businesses of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) members were being
firebombed and burnt to the ground by BNP cadres. This is the same
treatment that was meted out to the Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh (BDB) members
when they left the BNP in 2004.
Indeed, when we look at the political violence that has
been perpetrated over the past five years, it is clear where the balance
of the blame actually lies. It is only one side that has been the victim
of bomb blasts, grenade attacks and high profile assassinations. It is
only one side that has perpetrated massive violence against breakaway
factions. It is only one side that unleashed an orgy of violence after it
won the election and has continued to exert a rein of terror against rival
political workers throughout the country for the past five years.
Looking at the entire context of the past five years, it
is simply untenable for the BNP to be able to escape shouldering its fair
share of blame for the recent political violence that has roiled the
country.
No one is defending the actions taken on October 28 and 29
and it is nothing short of a tragedy that two dozen people lie dead as a
result. But the notion that the monopoly of political violence lies on one
side of the aisle is a myth that it is important for independent observers
to challenge.
I do not know at the time of writing what will happen on
the 12th and whether the actions of that and any subsequent day will lead
us to an even darker political future than the one we are faced with
today. I do not know if the violence and anarchy will have been so great
as to call into question the democratic future of the country in which the
opposing sides to the conflict are simply unable to settle their
differences in a peaceable manner.
But one thing that must be made clear is that the side
that has used the past five years to decimate its enemies and refuses to
permit a level playing field for free and fair elections is surely equally
at fault, if not more so, as the side that has spent the past five years
running for its life, and in the end precipitates violence in an attempt
to withstand these undemocratic machinations.
We need to look at the entirety of the past five years to
understand what lies behind the violence of the last few weeks and to
understand who is to blame for it. The latest spate of violence may have
been initiated by the Awami League but the match was first struck by the
Bangladesh Nationalist Party. It is important that the fair share of blame
for the current crisis be judiciously and correctly apportioned between
the two parties. n
(Zafar Sobhan is forum editor, Forum
magazine.)
http://www.thedailystar.net/forum/2006/november/howdid.htm