Real trumps the ideal

[This was published in Dhaka Courier was 10 May 2013]

People are usually accustomed to think and say that ideal is model while reality tries to become its reflection in various manners, modes, ratio and dimensions. It happens because ideal acts as a model for any kind of noble plans and program. This has been on in Individual life, society and state, regional and global perspectives from the days immemorial. Bangladesh and her people are, as a rule, very much within the cavity of this unavoidability. And, interestingly enough, reality is so unbolt and uncovered, which unfolds the truth that ‘Real is more ideal than ideal itself’.

Plato, widely known as the master of those who know, talked about the very implementation of the theory of “Ideal State” as conceived in his book ‘The Republic’ that he wrote at the age of 40 but later he had to come to a realistic conclusion ‘that the Republic was his ideal and degradation from this model due to general understanding and propensity of people was a kind of unavoidable reality depending on time, space and dimension. Yes, such was the theme in his books ‘Statesmen and ’‘Laws’, which he wrote at the age of 60 and 75. In Bangladesh ‘ideal thoughts or models at various stations’ are mostly just mere utterances and/or sleeping documents. Reality moves more aggressively towards falling down from such ideal standing and thus continues uninterruptedly.

                                                                                                                                     

Aristotle in his epoch-making book ‘Politics’, a basic document on politics and political science, held that for having the best practicable government a state should have its own model and means reflected duly in practice as well to survive and flower under the given circumstances. Therefore, going beyond the oft-quoted idealistic limits it signifies otherwise that harmony, symphony and symmetry between a state and its population, question of nature and form of government should come as condition precedent. If there is any lacking practically then the system is sure to collapse, or it is prone to start malfunctioning. In contemporary understanding it is called ‘cut your coat according to the clothes’. Hardly there is any challenge to the saying since the nation-states of the era are suffering acutely for such lack of setting and resetting, starting from micro to macro levels. Yes, Bangladesh is undeniably one of them in reality.

Machiavelli, called father of political science, whose thoughts on politics and statecraft contained pointedly in ‘The Prince’ is till the date considered as one of the best missiles even by the democrats, opined with a firm determination that ‘people should always be taken into account while a leader/statesman feels inclination to embark upon any plan or decision since the ultimate goal of a state is to ensure peace, stability, unity and development in the territory concerned. In the Prince he upheld the manner and mode as to how to consolidate and unify the strengths and powers in the hand of a prince with a view to produce the best results for the people and the country. He was not indifferent to the opinions of the majority; rather he spoke straightway and honestly about the detection of such basis in the context of time, space and dimension. Discontents, conflicts, chaos and confusion and so on arise when a government fails to understand such realities and begins trampling the areas which should be considered as the best or better opportunities for taking initiatives for the welfare of the people and the state’. Although he was rigid and high to his stand from his own standpoints, he has later been marked by many as a toady of the Prince/Ruler. Thus, he has widely been misunderstood and misused by the forces in politics and statecrafts. Bangladesh necessarily comes closer to this fold. Truth is that he was free and fair to show that what the reality is and ideal proper lies in real.

Rousseau, the exponent of social contract theory, which is one of the recognized sources of the origin of state, defined his well known “General will” in three different ways:

General Will is the will of the majority aimed, of course, at the welfare of the people at large; or

General will is the will of the minority aimed, of course, at the welfare of the people at large; or

General Will is the will of a few or even an individual aimed, of course, at the welfare of the people at large.

In fact, by defining ‘general will’ in various modes and dimensions under various landscapes Rousseau actually hunted to mean that ‘there is no alternative to the welfare of the people if a government aspires to survive, continue and even get reelected whatever might be the form of government’. But in today’s Bangladesh the very theme of ‘general will’ in spite of having its connotation in line with the will of the majority being reflected through the practice of parliamentary democracy is in the most awkward pose because of the foisting of so-called welfare-oriented view of the very few in the end. Here reality speaks more ideally than ideal itself.

Miller, a political scientist of a great repute, concluded: ‘Politics means Disagreement; disagreements leading to conflicts based on value-rooted ends of actions. He made it conspicuous that ‘where there is no value-rooted ends of actions disagreement leading to conflict cannot last and continue in the end. Mere disagreement leading to conflicts without having any value-rooted ends of action carries germs of disunity and backwardness instead of unity and forwardness’. Hence, ideal is sleeping in reality.

Yes, in all such cases, issues and instances the leading focal point is Man and his welfare. Family, society and state, to say more specifically, are created for wider opportunities and development in an atmosphere of amity and cooperation. Survival and development of a political society like ours cannot be allowed to go on unattended and unchecked at the ongoing rate and vehemence. We must go beyond the limit of the age and that's why, the long-standing impasse arising out of differences of stands, policies and formulas of BNP and AL needs to be resolved without more ado.

People have virtually lost confidence in both politics and political parties in general and politicians in particular as they miserably failed to set and prove “politics” as a set of values, goals and targets and ‘political parties’ as a dependable problem-solving agency. People are being hunted for people’s interests but they are not considered by our political parties when they deserve it rightly. What a surprising irony it is!

Therefore, let Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia, leaders of the two leading petticoat parties in today’s Bangladesh take note of the pulses and languages of the people without killing time any more. Let them be friendly, responsive and responsible in almost all respects upholding the interests of the nation above all. Let them realize that real is more ideal than ideal itself as reality can speak truly what the problems are and how such things should be addressed duly.