Political scientists: Case of Bangladesh

[Summary of this was published on 03 May 2013 in Dhaka Courier. It was published in the New Media of International Political Science Association on 15 May 2013. Full text was published on 14 May in the Daily New Nation]

Needless to say twice that the state of politics and statecrafts under all the circumstances, whether it is in North America or in South America or in Asia or in Africa or in Australia or in Europe, mostly plays dominant role for the growth and development of political scientists in any environment. Models, formulas and theories grow and develop more quickly and befittingly in an atmosphere of crises and complexities and it is on record in political history and political science that nearly all the leading political thinkers, political philosophers and political scientists are the products of their respective time, space and dimension. Plato, Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Jean Bodin, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Laski, John Stuart Mills, Sabine, Denning, Thomas Aquinas, Montesquieu, Dicey, H.Finer, Hugo Gracie, Huntington et al in the past, remote or immediate, and in meticulous in the context of this Indian sub-continent Dr.G.W.Chowdhury, Dr. Rashiduzzaman, AC Kapoor, JP Suda, Arun Agrawal, Baldev Raj Nayar, Pradip Basu, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Shireen Mazan, Javed Hashmi, Zaid Hamid, Dr. Rounaque Jahan, Dr. Ataur Rahmana, Dr. Dilara Chowdhury, M.I. Chowdhury, Dr. Emajuddin Ahmed and so on within the compass of last few decades bear such testimonies pointedly. Therefore, if there arises a phenomena that depicts such reality in a reverse manner telling us in a sense of desperation that even in the most doable political landscape political scientists there could not prove their excellence to the growth and development of models, formulas and theories then it is not only unfortunate but also a kind of unfairness to the discipline concerned. But as ill luck would have it, Bangladesh in this regard as a whole conceivably tops the list.

Our political scientists in particular Bangladesh Political Science Association (BPSA), which is almost dead, may put forward many a reason, convincing or not, for lagging behind. Or they may feel free to voice on a high volume that they have advanced a lot but their contributions are not being weighed properly by the critics. Or there may be a compromise route to say that they are within the limitations therein doing their best in various forms and manners in the context of time, space and dimension. Whatever the responses might be, truth is that the nation is not markedly aware of their overall contributions to the areas they are dealing with. Why does it happen when there are lots of possibilities, opportunities and realities?  These entire may in the main better, inter alia, be taken into account as follows:

a. Today everything is divided into diametrically opposed camps under the leadership of the petticoat leaders Sheikh Hasina, currently the Prime Minister, and Begum Khaleda Zia, now the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, of the two leading petticoat political parties Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Our political scientists and Bangladesh Political Science Association, like all other professionals, associations, bodies and organizations, are not as well immune from such inevitable blasts and consequently the nation is beset and upset with pro-AL and Pro-BNP political scientists;

b. What Sheikh Hasina utters, says and adheres that is/are final for AL and all others within this fold while in case of Khakleda Zia the same is/are the practice for BNP. Political scientists, present and/or budding, are not applying their scholarly knowledge, experiences and efficiencies to look into the issues and problems in politics and statecrafts and thus pile and store accumulated resources to advise relevantly to the persons entailing decision-makers and policy-makers as friend, guide and philosopher. Competing or to say more aggressively beating and outsmarting other disciplines, brain mortgage, brain tender, brain sales and purchases in the sense of using one’s  knowledge and expertise for one’s instant benefits are on in full swing in the domain of political scientists as if ‘sophism’ of ancient Athens has reappeared with all its vices and ills.

c. One of the basic foundations of any discipline in social sciences is research (es), which is now on decrease in Bangladesh. As a result, the numbers of political scientists proper are getting reduced gradually. Today, prospective political scientists are making move consciously towards becoming political analysts, political observers etc just to earn money and short-lasting name and fame. More painstaking is that in many cases they are doing all these either negligently or recklessly getting themselves aligned with the trends and currents of era. Photocopy-based approach to learning and reaching is indeed a threat to every discipline including politics and political science. Faring well in examinations and knowing the discipline profoundly are not the same but nowadays such line of demarcation is being blurred shamelessly; 

d. Political scientists in the folds of these two camps either do not dare to advise the concerned policy and decision makers to go beyond the respective party line approaches and strategies if such advice is needed for the interests of country or they feel free both opportunistically and strategically not to think otherwise and thus continue safely being with the respective folds. One may talk of getting proper space to play a role but truth is that space is not available without trouble from inside and outside the atmosphere under which a political scientist passes his time. He has to be uncompromising, dauntless walking determinedly, if possible, along the line of Hercules, of Robert Bruce. A political scientist has to take and accept challenges to reach at the goal.

Let us refresh our memory with the great saying of Socrates who before his tragic death by drinking Hemlock (a kind of liquid poison) following the verdict of the Court in Athens told the Judges of the Court that ‘Time of our departure has arrived. I to die and you to live but which is better only God knows’. More memorable is the saying of Plato who justified his fleeing from Athens in the dark of night noting that ‘Let the Athenians not be cursed twice” which meant the Athenians committed the first blunder by putting his master Socrates into death and if the same fell on him that would be the second faux pas. Therefore, better option to break away from the intrigue and rage leveled against him by the authority in Athens was to leave Athens behind closed doors.  Yes, Socrates took the challenge in favor of truth and justice by drinking hemlock while Plato did the same by fleeing from Athens so that future could be in a position to judge the matter in right perspective that he did the best one in the context of time, space and dimension; and

e. Political gains for pro-ruling party/alliance political scientists in the form of portfolio and other privileges in different offices and bodies in the government have nakedly grasped them by and large and the same are coveted for pro-opposition political scientists if such party/alliance is voted to power.

There were sycophancies and appeasements in the past. We wonder how Machiavelli won over the mind of the Prince by writing the book ‘The Prince’ (The descriptions within The Prince have the general theme of accepting that the aims of princes—such as glory and survival—can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends).

Interesting it is really if we see how Hobbes convinced Charles 11 to save himself from the anticipated wrath by writing the book ‘Leviathan’(Leviathan meticulously argues that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the founding of a commonwealth through social contract. Hobbes's ideal commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign power responsible for protecting the security of the commonwealth and granted absolute authority to ensure the common defense. In his introduction, Hobbes describes this commonwealth as an "artificial person" and as a body politic that mimics the human body. The frontispiece to the first edition of Leviathan, which Hobbes helped design, portrays the commonwealth as a gigantic human form built out of the bodies of its citizens, the sovereign as its head. Hobbes calls this figure the "Leviathan," a word derived from the Hebrew for "sea monster" and the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in the Bible; the image constitutes the definitive metaphor for Hobbes's perfect government. His text attempts to prove the necessity of the Leviathan for preserving peace and preventing civil war.

 To achieve the goal, Hobbes uniquely took resort to geometry and then modeled his philosophical method in Leviathan following a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions, and in which each step of argument makes conclusions based upon the previous step. Hobbes decided to create a philosophical method similar to the geometric proof after meeting Galileo on his extended travels in Europe during the 1630s. Observing that the conclusions derived by geometry are indisputable because each of constituent steps is indisputable in itself, Hobbes attempted to work out a similarly irrefutable philosophy in his writing of Leviathan).

It is indeed a matter of great attention how poet Hakīm Abul-Qāsim Ferdowsī Tulsi, most commonly known as Ferdowsi, entered into the very bosom of the mind of the Sultan Mahmud of Gazni by producing ‘Shahanameh’ (The Shahnameh was originally composed by Ferdowsi for the princes of the Samanid dynasty, who were responsible for a revival of Persian cultural traditions after the Arab invasion of Persia in the seventh century. After the fall of the Samanids, he dedicated his work to the new ruler, Mahmud of Ghazni, who was also a great patron of Persian arts and literature. The Shahnameh chronicles the legendary history of the pre-Islamic kings of Iran from Keyumars to Yazdegerd III Ferdowsi spent over three decades (from 977 to 1010) working on the Shahnameh, which became one of the most influential works of Persian literature).

 All these creations crossed the four walls of   mere sycophancies and appeasements by virtue of their profundity of visions, missions, thoughts, styles and techniques of presentations. They made their presence long lasting and appealing in the respective disciplines.

But our political scientists are not even responsive, responsible, tactful, diplomatic and visionary in advising, saying and writing. That’s why, since the day of independence till the date not a single political scientist has been able to make his/her presence meaningful and durable by devising formula, model or theory to resolve crises related to politics and statecrafts, although Bangladesh is a land for such possibilities, opportunities and realities. Rather various think-tanks, bodies, organizations having diverse shades, opinions and backgrounds showed and are still showing their excellence at the call of time, space and dimension. Let our political scientists take vow to get rid of such stagnation of political philosophy and theory. Let them come forward to set examples that in the land of 160 million people with only nearly 55000 square miles, there remain also enough scopes to devise so many models and theories in political science and politics that shall be befitting under the similar circumstances in other countries in the world. Therefore, political scientists in Bangladesh have golden opportunities still today to stand with the heads high in pride in the domain of politics and statecrafts through their contributions at the call of time, space and dimension.