Party-based line of approaches: Case of Bangladesh

[This was published in the African Herald Express on 12 April and in Dhaka Courier on 12 April 2013]

In today’s democratic world party-based line of approaches and strategies to national issues and interests, both internally and externally, is well recognized in politics and political science. More interesting is that elections to national legislative bodies are mostly held on the basis of pre-electoral manifestos of a variety of political parties, small or big, wherein each of them highlights, carries and upholds respective line of approaches and strategies to win over the very minds of voters singularly and/or collectively. When a party/alliance is voted to power it then takes it guaranteed that it has been supported and mandated by the majority people to move with its declared line of approaches and strategies. Therefore, electoral pledges and electorate’s approval—verdict of the people-- (through votes) get mingled and united affirmatively at a certain point when a party/alliance is declared as winner in an election to take over the leadership of government for a definite period of time say four or five years.

But there is a line of demarcation between electoral mandate to a party/alliance by the electorate in an election and consensus between or among political parties in a country on national issues and interests. Needless to utter twice that the electoral mandate is the first and foremost requisite for a party/alliance to run a government but at the same time it is also important to see that there are some areas where understanding and support in the form of consensus between or among the political parties in parliament in particular with the major opposition/alliance are equally imperative as well. Hence, excessive party-based line of approaches and strategies to national issues and interests is neither desirable nor practicable for any set of parliamentary democracies. But, as ill luck would have it, this, like other member states in the fold of developing countries, has for now stood as the Himalayan barrier in today’s Bangladesh.

Party-based line of approaches and strategies to issues and problems, external and/or internal, may be categorized into excessive and moderate ones. It is moderate when a party in power follows its line of approaches and strategies being respectful to opposition’s valued views, approaches and strategies.  Under this umbrella, a party usually adopts a policy of wide perception, digestion and accommodation having understanding on some vital issues of national importance with other political parties in parliament. Major opposition in Parliament here emerges as a friend, philosopher and responsible aide for the party/alliance in power by means of advice, cooperation and constructive criticism with possible alternative realistic proposals in most of the cases as if a happy marriage has taken place befittingly. This phenomenon is almost a dream in the context of currently moving confrontational politics in Bangladesh.

It is excessive when a party/alliance while putting its electoral pledges and approaches into practice does not care any party in parliament including the major opposition. This may occur in two ways--- (a) Because of its pursuing of policy of arrogance, which means the party/alliance in power does not care others in parliament covering too the main opposition/alliance with an ostensible belief that defeating the others in the race of election it has been mandated by the people to follow absolutely its line of approaches and strategies. It treats the mandate by the people as the voice of the people and that should, if truth be told, be called ‘consensus among the people’’. It is more important and valuable than any kind of consensus between or among the political parties inside or outside the parliament. Therefore, it is not necessary to listen to what the opposition/alliance in Parliament say and shout. Or (b) Due to its policy of deviation that implies it deviates straightway from its declared electoral line of approaches and strategies. When such situation arises it is to be treated as a kind of betrayal to the verdict of the people. In both cases party/alliance in power rejects oppositions’ criticism all the time paving the way for widening chasm between it and the oppositions in parliament. Bangladesh is now grossly faced with such unfortunate state of affairs.

There is another line of approaches which is mostly leveled by the opposition in parliament and it is called excessive line of approaches and strategies by the opposition. Under this umbrella, opposition in particular the main opposition/alliance out-and-out takes resort to the politics of negation in almost all respects, becoming or not. Here, as a result, crops up the rigid stand of yes or no i.e. what is ‘yes’ to the party/alliance in power that is ‘no’ to the opposition/opposition alliance in parliament and vice versa. Bangladesh has now become a hotbed for such practices for which neither the party/alliance in power nor the opposition/alliance in opposition is in a rank to show excellence in establishing, nursing and developing parliamentary democracy.

Yes, there is no denying the fact that the best practicable mode and way for Bangladesh is to strike a middle course of action anyhow where there shall at least be a line of perception, tolerance and accommodation in weighing electoral pledges of the party/alliance in power, in understanding and evaluating the voice of the oppositions in particular the voice of the main opposition in parliament and in showing respect to the electoral pledges of the party/alliance in power by the opposition pointedly by the major opposition in parliament. We must affirm and assert that to run a government in a democratic order ‘electoral mandate’ in the appearance of consensus among the people is not the last word as the party/alliance in power has to confront a number of visible and/or invisible challenges nationally, bilaterally, regionally and globally. So, a happy understanding in the outline of ‘national consensus’ between or among the political parties in parliament in meticulous for the greater interests of nation is undeniable on the one hand and on the other showing respect and giving credence to the party/alliance in power by the opposition under all the circumstances for its smooth and uninterrupted moving to put its electoral pledges into practice is a condition precedent. Therefore, let there be a light, more and more light in the domain of parliamentary democracy in our golden Bangladesh.

Are not the more or less similar political landscapes appearing or prevailing in the lands of Africa? Despite all limitations, let South Africa be a model for others who are fighting for democracy not merely idealistically but realistically in the true sense, implication and application. Let the people in the developing countries realize from the very bosom of mind that there may not be many Nelsen Mandelas but there must be hundred of like- Mandelas since all good days are not lost in the past forever but they are also lying in the womb of future.