National Consensus Government for Ten Years?
October 14th, 2007
Professor Dr Badruddoza Chowdhury, the former BNP nominated President of Bangladesh, now leading another new political party, BIKALPA DHARA, has put up a suggestion for the country to have a ‘National Consensus Government for Ten Years’ that should be formed following the scheduled national election in 2008, and that to continue until 2018 even if there could be another election in between in 2013. He has no doubt demonstrated his sincerity and honesty in making the extra-constitutional proposal so far as his wish is concerned for end of envy and personal enmity between political opponents, doing away with politics of forced shut downs, destruction and arson of public properties, street fights between political rivals, reprisal killings of each other, that is, so far as had been in the past recurring politics of muscle power should no more prevail in the country in future and instead civilized and sober mode of social democratic practices should take root for everyday behavior for all citizens including, of course, of the political activists and for the next progeny. One must wonder if he was at all practical or has been having only daydream never to be realized.
Consensus, as Dr Chowdhury proposed, presupposes unity of thought and belief. No agreement in thought process or belief no consensus can be reached; even if some agreement were reached keeping difference in belief and thought, that consensus would hardly be durable. In Bangladesh politics, there exists in reality wide differences in belief and thought that have been continuing not for short period but for long time extending over centuries. Unity of geography, language, and political struggle for attaining some common goal, though at times, had apparent unity but in little course of time the unity fell apart as soon as the temporary goal had been attained. That was what happened even in the 1971 war of independence. Even the charismatic political personality of late 1960s and early 1970s of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman failed to keep on sustained unity of thought and action in post 1971 Bangladesh. Unfortunately when he tried to force on the people his own unity of thought in the guise of the lone party BAKSAL in early 1975, he ended up very sadly soon after within eight months of the imposed unity. The story did not end there. Soon after his fall from absolute power, the country made a fresh start parting away from the unity concept Mujib intended to sell and impose on the people. The failure was not for any other reason but for difference in thought process and ingrained belief of the common people that had been well nourished and developed in maturity for centuries through historical processes of many ups and downs for centuries. Thus the post 1975 process took to the Bangladeshi geographical nationalist thought and for the overwhelmingly popular belief system, whereas, the pre 1975 brief process that marked prominently by the 1971 war had just only been a sort of big confusion for attempted departure from the ongoing continuing long historical process. Interestingly both groups fought the 1971 war having immediate common objective for independence from Pakistan but once this aim was achieved the majority people started to shy away from the narrow ethnic national identity reinforced by the 15th August 1975 victorious coup followed in logical sequence by the army-people revolution of the 7th November in about 11 weeks from the mid August change ultimately culminating in the Bangladeshi concept both in thought and constitutional action programs. The Constitution had thus the 5th Amendment that kept Bangladesh going ahead for the last 32 years or so; even so, the other concept and thought continued with some groups who subscribed with different ideas, thought and belief. In other words, the division remained deeply rooted that is unlikely to end soon in practical politics on the ground.
Dr. Chowdhury, a medicine specialist by profession, entered into politics with the late Army- President Ziaur Rahman in late 1970s as the Secretary General of the BNP or the Bangladesh Nationalist Party established and led by Ziaur Rahman until his premature passing away in 1981. In reality, President Ziaur Rahman’s rise in politics and State power was not that easy or came about in any normal political process but through armed revolt, one after another, beginning in mid August 1975. Dr Chowdhury knows well those events and developments. Not only this; he knows well further that these revolts or revolutions gave obvious birth to the changed philosophy of the State of Bangladesh manifested in the name or appellation of the party that identified themselves as the Bangladeshi nationalist implying the geographical identity of all citizens irrespective of caste and creed or religious beliefs. That is how there occurred a natural parting away from the earlier narrow ethnic nationality variety of the brief post 1971 period that clearly contradicted with modern concept of geographical nationality and identity. The divide continues not only in rhetoric but also in goals, outlook and very importantly, in people’s psyche or passions. Dr Chowdhury cannot be oblivious to this harsh reality in politics in Bangladesh, because, he had been with the BNP for nearly 25 years ending as the President of country on BNP’s ticket. How could then one evaluate his proposal for the ‘consensus’ clearly indicating departure from the philosophy of the Bangladeshi nationalism as distinct from the lone language based narrow ethnicity not that for as much love for common vocabulary of the common people but of the Kolkatta based heavily Sanscritized one starting from the Fort William College Pundits beginning in 1800 A.D. Once one would realize the crafty game behind, one is certain to discover the root cause of the ongoing division, elitist though, to understand the implications in matters of politics in Bangladesh. One would only hope that Dr Chowdhury made the proposal rather naively having nothing of deep thought in the matter that cannot but be deeply rooted conspiratorial and anti-national.
It is therefore quite likely that Dr Chowdhury’s proposal for the consensus government at this stage, even after the next election is preposterous. What may, however, be useful is that if the parties in the political field could agree to disagree for pluralism and so give the multi-party democratic practices to effectively function for peaceful co-existence of all groups, position and opposition playing their due roles as are required in parliamentary democracy with civilized norms for all parties concerned, and for effective advancement and welfare of all people and the country.
Author: M.T.Hussain