[This was published in two
installments in Dhaka Courier on 14 & 21 September 2012]
Statesmanship in running a political
party and government in a state depending on time, space and dimension
determines the overall standing and excellence of politics and political
leadership in a state. It does not come overnight or it is not a matter of incorporation
readily. It grows, develops and proliferates in a political entity in line with
the development of order-based institutions such as political parties,
parliament and government (executive branch). Therefore, statesmanship is not
confined to a single model rather a multitude of models are available in its
domain, say, USA
model, and British model, Indian model so on and so forth. And logically
enough, the appearance and continuance of Bangladesh model is just a
corollary one in its own perspective. HM Ershad, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina
and others in the same fold and in various wrinkles are to be dubbed as
statesmen essentially after ‘Bangladesh model’, a model that entails
sector-wise all such as ‘Politics, Bangladesh model’, ‘Parliament, Bangladesh
model’, Civil societies, Bangladesh model’ and come what may not.
Dearth of statesman in a political party
may be minimized for a short while but poverty of statesmen can barely be
minimized for a long to keep rhythm with time, space and dimension in national,
bi-lateral, regional and international perspectives and landscapes. The matter
tends to be a momentous one if the party is a major one but it appears to be
the gravest one when the party carries a tradition of forming government and
sitting in the opposition in Parliament in an alternative course of term.
Anxiously enough, the matter takes the silhouette of torpedo or cyclone when it
is found that all the political parties in a country suffer mostly from the same lacking, which cannot but be
called a kind of ‘political sickness’ of the highest order.
Time and tide waits for none.
Today’s realities, unlike the past in most of the cases, bring to light
pointedly and watchfully that the necessities and challenges in their
multi-faceted modes and magnitudes are passing signals and reminding us ad
infinitum that the most important time is ‘now’ and the truth is that this ‘now’
(time) is an entirety of many a moment, hour, day, month, year and so on in the
context of space (place) and dimension (surroundings). And in the penultimate
analysis and mathematics, everything is measured and determined on a scale of
time, which is moving from present to future in a nonstop motion and manner.
Hence, it is told and expected that to nurture, reap and bag the benefits of
every moment of ‘now’ efforts should accordingly be invested to the best of
one‘s capacity and capability in the proper scale of opportunities available,
near or remote.
Once time on hand is lost, it is
lost forever. At present, we can neither go back to the past nor can we visit
the future. Magic or law of time travel as such is not known to us till the
date, although searches and researches in physics in particular are on in full
swing. Let Stephen Hawking and others in the mission be full of activity with
it so that the law of time travel, supposed to be unlocked by the invention of
the key to ‘Fourth dimension’, may soon be made available. Therefore, until the
arrival of the diamond moment it’s a Hobson’s choice for the denizens of the
world to wait with patience and tolerance.
But politics and statecrafts are
such areas of human concerns where there is no scope to keep the things pending
in expectation of something miracle, perhaps, in row with the time travel where
time machine(s) shall be instrumental for being informed of the follies and
mistakes made in the past, and of the phenomenon of the future, which is the
continuation of the present standing as a whole in the strict sense of the term
and thus we or our future generations may, being in the present in the context
of time, space and dimension, have time for setting and resetting the policies,
programs and initiatives of the present, if possible at all. Needless to utter
twice that like all other things on earth, politics and statecrafts are also
time-bound and, therefore, what is left behind or set aside intentionally,
recklessly or inadvertently, it is really not so easy a task to put the same on
rail in line with the vision and mission taken at a definite period of time
earlier. Therefore, it is wiser for our leaders in their capacity of policy and
decision makers to depend on the present and thus set and reset policies,
decisions, programs aimed at the well-being of the people and the country.
In politics and statecrafts, on all
accounts and under all the circumstances, yes, time is the measuring rod that
determines and fixes, inter alia, the date of elections from local to national
bodies, duration of Parliament and government etc for a limited span of time.
For any sort of activities, program or policies first and foremost
consideration is the ‘span of time’. That’s why, it is said that the world is
set on a scale of time. Then, therefore, arises a pertinent asking in our
perspective, are our leaders aware and careful of the proper use of time here
in Bangladesh?
Answer is definitely not, not in the
factual sense of the term. There is no denying the fact that notwithstanding
anything contained in the documents and literatures eulogizing the earnestness,
genuineness, transparency and
commitments of the leaders and limitations therein, factual or fictitious ,
reality bears adequate testimonies that our leaders have, as of today, either
failed miserably or could not prove their excellence to move with time taking
due care of space (place) and dimension (surroundings) in our contexts
upholding the overall standing of Bangladesh at home and abroad.
But, as ill luck would
have it, none of them feels shy of beating the drums all over and again giving
signals and messages persistently that their only vision and mission are the
welfare and development of the people and the country. Politics, political
parties, political activists and leaders are in consequence voluntarily made
themselves pledge-bound to stand by and serve the people under all state of
affairs. From this very point of view, politics is a responsibility not a
privilege. It is about giving-up not about taking away. The process is
contained, carried and sustained by political parties of various folds, spaces
and dimensions under the stewardship of respective political leaders, starting
from local to regional to national scales. It is organically marked with patience,
tolerance, perseverance and so on. So, politics moves together with time, space
and dimension. If a political party makes attempts to move with time ignoring
the place and surroundings barely can it succeeds. But in all cases time is the
cardinal point since the party’s programs and manifesto are the reflection of
the calls and needs of time. Role of the political parties in a multi-party
Parliamentary democracy like Bangladesh in building and galvanizing public
opinion in favor carries topmost priority as
targets and successes of a political party can be achieved when people’s
support to it rises high making the way less thorny and less challenging for
its being voted to power.
Can a party of the
21st century, which is mostly framed on science, both social and
natural, law, technology and religion (founded on scientific interpretations in
line with basic sense and spirit), be without a statesman or a stock of
statesmen in its fold in the face of the challenges, predictable or not?
Response is yes it can. But this ‘can’ is limited to a certain standards and
norms because there may hardly be a political party without a statesman.
However, when a political party or government is largely led by political
leadership with poor statesmanship or when a political party or administration
does not pay due attention to statesmanship-like qualities, it then starts
suffering from not enjoying the fruits of good administration. What is most
important for ensuring good governance is to have political leadership having
the qualities of statesmanship both in the government and in the political
parties irrespective of size, ideology and organizational strength.
Unfortunately, in
today’s world, political leaderships with demonstrable statesmanship-like
qualities has become a rarity. This is a matter of vital concern predominantly
for the developing countries. It is on record that such political leadership
with poor statesmanship is generally responsible for maladministration denoting
full of corruptions, unfair means, restlessness distortions and perversions.
This weakens the very foundation of democracy, which connotes government by the
people, of the people and for the people. Experiences, near or remote, in the
countries of south Asia bear glaring
testimonies to it.
Then the further
asking comes up, what is the magic or say Aladdin’s lamp being held by a
statesman proper? Answer is clean and clear that the magic or Aladdin’s lamp
being held by a statesman is her or his statesmanship, which is the excellence
and pinnacle of politics and administration. Here, therefore, arises the
necessity of an easily understandable definition of statesmanship.
In fact,
statesmanship/statecrafts in a broad sense denotes art of administration and
management and it includes a vast area of activities, ranging from micro to
macro levels, involving commercial, financial, academic institutions and
executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and so forth and the
person or persons who is or are skilled, efficient and receptive in such art is
or are called statesman or statesmen.
In its narrow
compact, statesman is linked to the art of administration related to the
affairs of state. Here our concern is the latter that is affairs of state. In
the old days when politics meant exclusively the affairs of state (usually in
city-state) statesmanship was then relevantly and essentially equated with it
in the context of the then time, space and dimension. But in modern days its
ambit has ballooned in the context of time, space and dimension. Today
statesmanship encompasses art of administration both inside and out the
administration (government). Thus, statesmanship is manifested in two ways or
to say more acutely that there are two kinds of statesmanship--- one is
statesmanship from the seat of administration (government) and the other being
statesmanship from outside the seat of administration. The former may be
possible with or without a political background, for cases in point, Jawaharlal
Nehru, first Prime Minister of independent India, (with a political background)
and Manmohan Singh, sitting Prime Minister of India (without a political
background), F. Roosevelt, former President of USA( with a political
background) and George Washington, first President of USA (without a political
background) while the latter takes place within the domain or jurisdiction of
politics, for example, Indira Gandhi, VP Singh, Joti Basu and Pranab Mukhergee
in India, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, father of the
nation, and Zilfiker Ali Bhutto in
Pakistan, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of the nation, Ziaur
Rahman, HM Ershad, Sheikh Hasina and
Begum Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh, Mamon Abdul Gyum in Maldives, Grija Prasad
Koirala in Nepal, J.R. Jayewardne and
Chandrika Kumaratunga in Srilanka and Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar.
There we also come across persons
who take over power through martial law and run the administration for a long.
Some of them form political parties and try to perpetuate their rule politically
say, Generals Ayub Khan in Pakistan, Ziaur Rahman and HM Ershad in Bangladesh
while others prefer to continue without a political party even without allowing
any party system in the current sense of the term as was the case of General Muhammad Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan.
All of them fall within the definitions of statesman in their respective
perspectives since there may be further categorizations centering the level and
standard of statesmanship/statecrafts. But the underlying reality is that while
judging a statesman’s standing careful and guarded attention should be given
without a bias to the challenges and dilemmas she or he was or is faced with in
the light of time, space and dimension. That’s why when Indira Gandhi, a long
time former Prime Minister of India, said ‘My father was a
statesman, I am a political woman. My father was a saint. I am not’ she just
indicated to her state of statesmanship in comparison with her father who is
regarded as one of the outstanding statesmen of his time. There are many a
criteria to determine one’s state of statesmanship and notably comes to the
fore is the name of S. Taylor Coleridge
who noted,’ The three great ends which a statesman ought to propose to
himself in the government of a nation are one, Security to possessors; two,
facility to acquirers; and three, hope to all’.
It
was held by Dr. Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and Monarch
of diplomats of his time, that, ‘the statesman's duty is to bridge the gap
between his nation's experience and his vision’. To achieve this, she or he
needs to be possessed of some extra-ordinary centripetal power by dint of which
she or he can put himself in a position of teacher of morality, which was
realized long time ago by Aristotle who said, ‘what the statesman is most
anxious to produce is a certain moral character in his fellow citizens, namely
a disposition to virtue and the performance of virtuous actions’. This is also
true that for becoming a statesman of the first water matching circumstances is
a condition precedent. In the words of
Theodore Roosevelt, former President of USA, ‘if there is not the war,
you don't get the great general; if there is not a great occasion, you don't
get a great statesman; if Lincoln had lived in a time of peace, no one would
have known his name’.
In
a nutshell, it can safely be concluded that statesmanship is the final and
highest degree of excellence of a political leader. A political activist makes
attempts to become a political leader, a political leader strives for becoming
a statesman and all collectively come to be known as politicians. There are also
grades of political activists, political leaders and politicians resting on
their organizational stations and political acumen. If politics remains solely in
the hands of activists and political leaders must it suffer from limitations within
and to overcome such borders injection and infusion of statesmanship into their
veins and brains appear to be possible route to success. That’s why it is said
that no political leader is a great leader without at the same time being a
statesman. And statesmanship can be practiced and played both from the seat of
government and from the seat of opposition while the carnal points are
essentially the interests of the nation and the country instead of the party’s
concerned. Yes, a statesman must talk of the policies and interests of his
party but he must not be forgetful of the aphorism ‘interests of the nation and
the country are greater than those of his party’. When such feeling resides in
the very mind of political leaders then the ‘golden key of the door to consensuses
of the burning issues of the day between or among the political parties inside
and outside the Parliament resultantly appears
before them and the nation starts taking pride in having them in politics and
statecraft.
In our perspective in Bangladesh, the state of
statesmanship, to speak the truth, is very poor whether it is in a political
party or whether it is in the administration (government). Since the
reintroduction of Parliamentary democracy through the constitution (Twelfth
Amendment) Act of 1991, frankly speaking, the nation has been caught in a
vicious circle of the politics of yes or no of the two major political parties,
Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party followed by other parties tied to
these two parties in the form and manner of alliance. Elections to local and
national legislative bodies have become an object of serious frustrations in
lieu of expectations as the defeated party/alliance all the time does practice the usual course of ‘no’ to the
results while the winning party beats
the drums of peaceful holding of free and fair elections. Diametrically opposed
political standing of the two major parties, starting from roots to national
levels, made the nation divided into two islands and nobody knows how to get
rid of it. No political party is interested in following, nursing and
practicing statesmanship. All powers of the party have been concentrated in the
hands of the single leadership of the respective Chiefs of the respective
parties. What she or he says that’s law and nobody dares question whatever the
quality and effectiveness of the decision might be. There has developed a kind
of dictatorship in the party politics making their constitutions subservient to
the will of such dictators while at the
government level a kind of Prime Ministerial system(Prime Ministerial
dictatorship) has meanwhile grasped our long cherished Parliamentary democracy.
Once Adlai E. Stevenson commented, ‘Politician is a statesman who approaches every
question with an open mouth’ but in today’s Bangladesh reverse is the case.
When we remember leading political scientist Walter
Lippman’s saying,’ the opposition is indispensable. A good statesman, like any
other sensible human being, always learns more from his opposition than from
his fervent supporters’ we feel where we are now. The very frame and theme of
statesmanship in today’s Bangladesh
is either shattered or suppressed otherwise. There cannot be any doubt about
the existence of statesmen in the political parties in Bangladesh
whatever might be their state of statesmanship but they cannot come out and
prove their excellence because of the unipolar leadership of the chief of the
respective parties. Same is true in case of the party in power. Time has come
to tell us that both the position and opposition leaders should play their role
duly applying their statesmanship as and when required.
Speaking in the superlative, neither Sheikh Hasina, sitting
Prime Minister and former leader of the opposition in parliament, nor Khaleda
Zia, the leader of the opposition in the current 9th Parliament and
former Prime Minister, appears to be willing to take risks going above the
parochial party interests even if such stand proves to be essential for coming
out of the ongoing deadlock in the political firmament of the country. So long
the oft-quoted maxim ‘a party ( meaning the interest of a party) is greater
than an individual or individuals and a nation/country is greater than a party’
remains and continues as a mere maxim(writings on paper) without having its
reflection in reality, it is really difficult to put politics and
administration on rail. Burning issues and concerns of the day including consensus
on major domestic and internationally issues, holding of elections to Parliament
under non-party, neutral CTG in consonance with the historic verdict of the
Supreme Court of the land can only be settled if both the sides come forward
with statesman-like understanding, spirit and vision ,not, not merely as politicians
who are impregnated with respective lines of party politics rotating all the
time around close-minded interests at the dire negation of national interests.
When we come to learn and experience that the topmost
leaders of the two major petticoat parties do not talk to each other, even do
not see each other’s face and thus avoid any social or religious occasion or get-together
where such possibility may take place, we then really get frightened thinking of
our present and future. Words and sentences being used by our leaders against
each and one another inside and outside the Parliament are not all becoming for
any democratic society. This is a time for our leaders to get sharpened and
polished more and more in line with statesmanship and thus prepares themselves
as statesmen to take the nation furthermore facing the challenges of the 21st
century with required courage and determination, for example, after the spirit
of Napoleon the Great who standing before the Alps could say, ‘there is no Alps’.
For the sake of encouraging statesmanship in the Opposition,
Let the leaders in the opposition in the 9th Parliament, first of
all, take a bold initiative without any delay to form a ‘Shadow cabinet’ where
there are opportunities to learn and practice statesmanship in an articulated
form and manner. Let them take firm move and decision not to boycott Parliament
in the ongoing approach and manner because by playing befitting role being
present in the sessions of Parliament, they and their rising stars in the fold
can learn and practice statesmanship a lot. Statesmanship will help them to
understand the issues related to development and thus encourage them to follow
alternative routes to hartals(strikes) and adhere to this. Let the door to inner
democracy be unlocked for its uninterrupted practice in the normal course of
action. Let leaderships at various stages of the party concerned are chosen and
decided through democratic provisions contained in the constitutions of
respective parties. Let Khaleda Zia feel free to initiate an era of
statesmanship in the opposition despite her holding the party under a single
umbrella of her own. Let her also be aware of the dictum that the life and
liveliness of a political party get swelled, strengthened and prolonged when
the policy of ‘’unity with diversity’ is followed and upheld not in words but also
in actions. She has to take some risks of giving up instead of taking away. Let
us remember here Charles de Gaulle, founder of the fifth Republic in France, who
once sounded cautiously, ‘The true statesman is the one who is willing to take
risks’.
Same is true in case of the party/alliance in power. Here
statesmanship has to be infused into the members of the Cabinet/Council of
Minister by making ‘collective leadership, responsibility and accountability’ a
reality. No ‘individual responsibility’ may grow, and be effective if the sense
of statesmanship is not practiced with due care and diligence (for more visit
author’s write-up ‘Statesmanship: Case of Hasina’s Council of Ministers at http://www.dhakacourier.com.bd/?p=7784)
. So, maximum care has to be taken and ensured so that no person who is not
prepared on her or his overall standing and qualifications to run a ministry is
included in the Cabinet or in the Council of Ministers. In politics ‘cronyism’
is sometimes appear to be unavoidable because of the reasons largely known or
unknown but it should have a margin for the sake of good administration and
national interests from which Bangladesh has been suffering since independence.
How can it be possible to get such persons if statesmanship is not practiced
first at the party level? That’s why without
any logic and argument yes, seeds of statesmanship has to be planted initially in
the party because formation of a government by a political party/alliance means
taking leadership of the government. It is definitely a misnomer to say that ‘the
party is going to form government’ or the President has asked the leader of the
majority party in Parliament ‘to form the government’.
Truly speaking, government is one of the four essential
components of a state and thus it exists and continues so long the state exists,
continues and survives resting on all the four apparatus together regardless of
which party or junta runs it for a definite or indefinite period of time. Therefore,
government factually never changes. What changes is, in a simple sense, its
leadership under the cap of Cabinet/Council of Ministers headed by Prime
Minister and MPs with the constitution of a new Parliament and in a broad sense
it also includes other changes by way of dropping from and appointing to the
various offices in the administration say in line with USA model. For
this reason befitting here should be the words ‘taking leadership of Government’
or’ ‘change of leadership in government’; Theories related to
governance, administration and organizations are of the sight under all
the circumstances that a good government implies a team of persons who are
competent enough to understand the complexities, nerves and veins of the issues
and problems before them and who can mostly take and ensure necessary steps to
confront them in the light of reality, acceptability and flexibility bringing
maximum dividends for the people and the country(visit author’s article ‘Statesmanship:
Case of Hasina’s Council of Ministers’ at
http://www.dhakacourier.com.bd/?p=7784(statesmanship)..
Keeping these in mind, statesmanship after Bangladesh
model means-------------------------------------
a.
Politics in Bangladesh is
still within the zone of antagonisms, opportunities and privileges instead of
mutual understanding, tolerance and sacrifices amounting to responsibility (visit
author’s article ‘Moot point is political leadership’ at http://sinhaearthblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/moot-point-is-political-leadership.html)
b.
The nation is
diametrically divided into two opposed camps, one is led by AL and other is headed by BNP. This has
given birth to the politics of ‘yes and/or ‘no’, which implies if AL says yes
to anything then BNP utters no to that immediately without giving thought to
the weight, importance, necessity and practicability and vice versa.
Consequently, long-coveted ‘national consensus’ on major and burring issues,
internal and external, has become a day dream under the ongoing mode and
pattern of politics(visit author’s article’ Three-phase national consensus formula:
Bangladesh Perspective at
http://sinhaearthblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/three-phase-national-consensus-formula.html).
Interestingly enough, there is a unique consensus between them from the seat of
the position and the seat of opposition in Parliament since they
opportunistically speak in the same voice and tone while in such standing. This
may rightly be called a kind of ‘consensus behind the curtain’;
c.
Because of this
division nearly all sectors from professional to non-professional bodies,
associational to non-associational organizations, think-tank to non-think-tank
entities, NGOs etc have come under the umbrella of these two parties and
politics of alliance is revolving around them. A sense of politicization is
hunting all emotionally or whimsically. This has further developed undesirable
currents and trends at the disregard of right and/or wrong. What AL and BNP say
that’s binding on all under their respective umbrellas. Today,
‘brain-mortgage’, ‘brain-sale’ and ‘brain-tender’ are on in full swing. Alas! Bangladesh,
alas! rapidly falling conscience. Should we be contended with such negative
landscapes of independent Bangladesh!!!:
a.
All kinds of negative
cronyisms, philistinism and commercialism are rampant here providing, helping
and sustaining a corruption-friendly environment from bottom to the top;
b.
Politics has been
made prey to commercialization and consequently almost all the key decision-making and law-making bodies, elected or not, like Parliament, Council
of Ministers, Council of Advisors have been captured by so-called
industrialists, traders, hoarders, bank-loan defaulters etc evicting ‘tested
politicians’ from there;
c.
Democracy means
so-called free and fair elections to Parliament aimed at going to power. No
importance in practice is attached to the free and fair elections to local
bodies in line with the elections to Parliament. Election Commission is yet to
emerge as a Commission standing on its own. It is still under the command of
the PM’s office and is wrought with limitations, inherent, administrative and
political. Absence of inner democracy in
a party, despite its having a lively, up to date constitution, is a reality
here in Bangladesh;
d.
A party is run here
on a dictatorial mode and manner. All powers are directly or indirectly,
formerly or informally, are concentrated in the hands of the chief of the party
concerned. No committee of a party or its wings or affiliated or friendly bodies
from local to national levels can be given birth to without the will of the
chief of the party concerned. There, party means the sayings and doings of its
chief. It is indeed autocracy of the highest order;
e.
Leadership at the
peak of a political party is decided and determined in line of succession and thus a dynastic rule has become a binding
rule in all the major political parties in Bangladesh including AL, BNP and Jatio
Party( because Ershad has appointed his younger brother GM Quader acting
chairman of Jatio Party so that in case of exigency or vacuum, he may step into
the shoes of his brother Ershad, founder of Jatio Party;
f.
Chief of a party
in the opposition in parliament also concurrently holds the office of the
leader of the opposition in parliament while the same is true to the chief of
the majority party in parliament who not only keeps the office of the majority
party in parliament but also becomes Prime Minister. Thus, all the three chief
offices of the ruling party is captured by the chief of the party alone and all
the two chief offices in the major opposition in parliament is held by its
chief of the party; and
g.
Neither the
process of leadership nor the process of statesmanship is duly attended here as
a result a kind of stagnation is persisting alarmingly in these areas. Therefore, all together have given birth
to a model of statesmanship called ‘Bangladesh model’, Resultantly, when we say that X is a good
statesman in the politics and statecraft of Bangladesh, it passes a
message that X is a statesman definitely
after Bangladesh model. In fact, no political party in Bangladesh is
functionally ready to run it politically in consonance with its declared
constitution, manifesto and electoral pledges on the one hand and on the other,
which is the resultant consequences of the former, no party is ready functionally
to play role in Parliament and run a government by demonstrating and
establishing statesmanship in expectation of the long-cherished statesmanship.
So, if these are the realities then what best else are left
for us. Sound, sound loudly where, where are Bangabandhu, Tagore, Nuzrul freedom fighter Ziaur Rahman who, on behalf
of Bangabandhu, declared the war of liberation and many in the hemisphere?
Where, where are the dedicated, scarified souls of the war of independence and war
of liberation? Where, where are living sector commanders (fie! many of them
have listed themselves as earthly personalities)? Where, where is our
long-cherished ‘Golden Bangladesh’? Behold, behold, and behold the state of
politics, leadership and statesmanship in today’s Bangladesh. Should we lament or
wake up?
Yes, I believe we should wake up, wake up and guard against
all these happenings that are taking us back as if we are moving unjustifiably
towards a black hole .Let our leaders, upon Almighty Allah, come forward honestly
and fairly to take these challenges
without any delay. People are waiting for such leaders for a long.
Let Barrister Moudud Ahmed (by and large earned his name and
fame as a politician of opportunistic Fabian policy)policy), Shah Moazzam
Hossain(almost a mystified person in charge about his station of politics
because of his moving from one party to
another), Dr. Khondaker Mosharf Hossain, Dr.Moyeen Khan, Jamiruddin Sarkar MK
Anowar Hannan Shah, Dr. Osman Farooq, Goeshwar Roy, and others in the same fold and line in the
opposition come forward and stand by the nation as statesmen not merely as
political leaders of BNP. HM Ershad, chairman of Jatio Party and former
president of Bangladesh, has a brighter chance to emerge and stand as a ‘third
force’ in the electoral politics of Bangladesh with his tested statesmanship
and indomitable zeal for developments, although his party is suffering an acute
shortage of statesmen at this very moment. Let HM Ershad, Kazi Jafar Ahmed( a leader of
many minds), barrister Anisul Islam Mahamud, Mostafa Jamal Haider, Kazi Feroz
Rahid, Ruhul Amin Haowlader in Jatio party stand by the nation as statesmen of
the time. Let Anowar Hossain Munju and
Sheikh Shahidul Islam, respectively chairman and secretary general of JP, play
more conspicuous role from their standpoints.
Role of Dr. B. Chowdhury, president of Bikalpa Dhara and former
president of Bangladesh,
and Dr. Kamal Hossain, chief architect of the Constitution of Bangladesh and
now president of Gona Forum, are not in a becoming tune with the hopes and
aspirations of the people at large. These two stalwarts have confined their
role mainly in making statements from time to time. Are not they depriving Bangladesh
nauseatingly in this matter? Is not it a
shame for Dr. Kamal Hossain that he is also dubbed by many as a ‘guest leader’
in his own country?’ Left political parties of various folds and ideologies are
at a marginal edge on this point while the right political parties are
habitually following BNP frequently without having any perceptible breakthrough
in this regard.
Let Motia Chowdhury, Nurul Islam Nahid, AVM (Rtd.) AK
Kondaker, Obaidul Quader (who might be treated as a model in the Hasina’s
Council of Ministers), Syed Asraful Islam, Latif Siddiqui and MA Mannan in particular
play their role as expected by the nations in line with their oath of offices. .
Let Tofael Ahmed, Abdul Jalil, Sheikh Selim sound properly from the crinkle of AL, although the voice
of Surenjit Sen Gupta, a minister without portfolio, is always in the air (he
has recently been caught in a belt of suspicion of integrity for a financial scam
of railways that caused him fall from the Council of Ministers).
Therefore, right or wrong, democratically speaking, Sheikh
Hasina and Begum Khaleda are the welders of powers from their respective seats
of position and opposition in an alternative course of action. And May Allah
bless Shiekh Hasina, Khaleda Zia and HM Ershad in meticulous so that they may
be committed and sincere with a renewed vow truly to the flowering of statesmen
in Bangladesh
from their respective standing and platforms. May Allah bless HM Ershad so that
he feels strong urge to pay due attention to the birth and emergence of
statesmen in Jatio Party. Yes, to comply with the mission and goal of producing
statesmen, first and foremost condition is to activate the sleeping
constitutions of the political parties in practice at the respective party
levels, to constitute ‘Shadow Government’ as an alternative platform to the
party/alliance in power and gear up the speed of the truthfulness of the
members of the Council of Ministers, individually and/or collectively, to the
oath of office Let them all bear in mind that all of us have to leave this ephemeral
world today or tomorrow and the posterity shall not forgive us if we fail to
leave behind a glorious traditions and foundations.
No comments:
Post a Comment