Poverty of statesmanship: Case of Bangladesh

On this very day of 26 March 2014 reflections on the past, starting from 1952 to 26 March 1971 to the culmination of the final victory on 16 December 1971 through the emergence of a free, sovereign and independent Bangladesh from the long 25 years of subjugation under the west Pakistani leaderships of Pakistan, then comprised of East Pakistan and West Pakistan, and focus on the present and prediction on the days ahead, called future, must be considered sans any shade of reservations as one of the leading points of  time, space and dimension in the on the whole context of Bangladesh. Those who fought and sacrificed and those who are doing so today challengingly at the costs of their valuables and lives taking no care of families even for the reasons that the concept of ‘golden Bangladesh’ would be a reality in the end are nowadays hardly recalled and honored with due flavor and somberness. Mushroom growth and escalation of negative landscapes in mostly all sectors are now so rampant and undressed that necessarily encourage even a layman to conclude ‘Are we moving towards a black hole setting aside the highways, roads, lanes and by-lanes to the golden Bangladesh?’ Therefore, asking is ‘who are by and large responsible and accountable for such state of affairs, people or leaderships?  Yes, in our context it is leadership(s), leadership(s) and leadership(s). 

In fact, I have been writing on politics, leadership and statesmanship for a long. The areas are so vibrant and indispensible that they are part and particle in our life since life in a state means life in the context of local, national, regional and global environs where the matter of leadership and statesmanship can scarcely be overlooked. This very article is a kind of synopsis of my understanding on leadership and statesman in Bangladesh perspectives in particular put into different articles in different times with necessary touch with the present in particular.

Question of statesmanship has become a fiery concern of the day in Bangladesh than ever before since dearth of statesmen in a political party in a state may be minimized at least for a while but poverty of statesmen can hardly be minimized for a long to keep pace with time, space and dimension in national, bi-lateral, regional and international relations and politics. The matter tends to be a grave one if the party is a major one and 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 turns to be a torpedo when it is found that all the political parties in a country by and large be sick with the same lacking, which cannot but be dubbed as a kind of ‘political sickness’ of the first water. Yes, for many a reason plus poor performance of statesmanship, both the folds of the position and opposition, Bangladesh has necessarily fallen into such trench, which has been having recurring negative feedbacks on the overall possibilities, opportunities and expected sustainable development and, to speak the truth, sincere, honest and time-bound initiatives to get rid of it is not explicably so visible and perceptive.

Politics of yes and/or no, also termed as ‘confrontational politics’, of the two major petticoat parties Awami League led by the sitting Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and Bangladesh Nationalist Party headed by the incumbent Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Begum Khaleda Zia has sharply divided the nation into two conflicting camps in almost all compliments from personal to familial to social to religious to cultural to economic entities. Nothing is apolitical and non-partisan and Hobson’s choice is either the umbrella of AL or BNP. Staying in-between means to go out of notice, importance and necessity. Intelligentsia, think-tanks, NGOs, associations, institutions, professional bodies of various natures, dimensions and backgrounds all are revolving around this reality, willingly or unwillingly. Cronyism, philistinism, selfishness, corruptions and all sorts of negative and degrading practices are swelling decisively both in private and public domains.

Party/alliance in power styles itself as master of the people politicizing bureaucracy, civil and military, to the point no return. Opposition in parliament is looked upon as antagonistic, troubling force by the party/alliance in power on the one hand while on the other opposition itself does prefer to choose, follow, maintain, preserve and carry on negative approach and politics instead of playing constructive, responsible and responsive parliamentary role and, frustratingly enough, shadow cabinet is yet to be born formally. Consequently, practice of statesmanship is missing markedly.

To be fair, neither Sheikh Hasina nor Begum Khaleda Zia is agreeable to take sincere initiatives and risks going above the parochial party interests even if such stand proves to be indispensable for putting an end to the  ongoing deadlock that are making political landscape unstable. Situations are deteriorating gravely after the so-called elections to the 10^th parliament. So long the oft-quoted maxim ‘Interest of party is greater than an individual’s and ‘Interest of nation/country is greater than a party’s’ remains and continues as a mere strategic and opportunistic saying without having its reflection in reality, it is, if truth be told, difficult to put politics, statecraft and administration on rail. Burning issues and concerns of the day including consensus on major internal and external issues can only be settled if both the sides come forward with statesman-like understanding, spirit and vision, not, not, not merely as leaders of respective parties. Regrettably, they are impregnated with lines of respective party politics and, thus, turning all the time around close-minded benefits at the dire negation of national interests.

From grass roots to the highest policy-making body of a political party utterance and voice of the apex leader is final and binding. Democracy here implies (a) casting votes in elections and (b) within a party it amounts to giving all powers unanimously to the chief to decide everything in his/her own way absolutely.
Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act of 1996 that reintroduced parliamentary system in Bangladesh has in effect given birth to a Prime Ministerial system of government with a symbolic head of state called ‘president’. Council of Ministers usually acts as PM’s marionette. Furthermore, Prime Minister holds also the offices of Chief of the party and leader of the house in Parliament while leader of the opposition in parliament retains tightly the office of the chair of respective party. Concentration of all the three offices in the single hand of Prime Minister has made her the most powerful head of government in the so-called democratic world.

When people in Bangladesh 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 stay away from any social or religious occasion or get-together where such possibility may take place, they then actually get panicky thinking of their present and future. All these do carry living documents and evidences of poverty of statesmanship in Bangladesh.

Therefore, let there be light, more and more light for dawning the sense of statesmanship in the minds of leaders for making leadership matured and updated so that people may have a taste of democracy in line with Lincoln’s saying ‘Democracy signifies that it is a  government of the people, by the people and for the people’. Above all, time has come to tell us loudly to listen to and learn more in practice from the recent political development through elections to National Assembly of Pakistan under a non-party, neutral CTG in Pakistan. Let us salute the leaders in Pakistan for their patience and sacrifice shown this time to come together under the umbrella of democracy.

Let warring Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh feel free to get rid of long-standing political stand-off between them for the greater interests of the people and democracy. Let the leaders in Bangladesh learn and experience more also from the political development in South Africa. Cannot Nelsen Mandela, a hero of time, be a glaring example for Bangladesh?  Cannot Dr. Mathir Muhammad, a legendary statesman in Malaysia, be treated as a source of inspiration for the drowning leaders in Bangladesh? Let us dig as well the best, acceptable and accommodating areas from the lessons in Srilanka and others in the same line.  Let us be staid too to gather more from Australia in our perspective. Let us above all, of course going beyond so-called dogmas and limitations about India, open our eyes wide enough to study, learn and understand the standing of the leaderships in India as a whole.

O the Leaders in Bangladesh do not waste time any more. Get ready to prove your excellence to convert this land into a ‘golden Bangladesh’ being responsive responsibly to the call of time, space and dimension moving onward geometrically within the fold of arts, science and technology and religions. Stop, stop practicing and/or allowing the revival of Honda, Monda and Goonda politics of 1986, 1989, 1996. Let Awami League be ashamed of the exercises of the same or more in the 10^th elections to parliament in the early 2014. Let both AL and BNP take a fresh vow not to use such modes in the ongoing elections to upazilas. Bangladesh needs more and more leaders in all the areas of concerns, beginning from political parties to bureaucracy civil or military to trades, commerce and industries to NGOs and so on. Statesmanship is the culmination of leadership. So, leadership-building initiatives not in words and sentences but in action should be the priority for Bangladesh. To suit all the purposes, political leadership is a must. Once political leaderships are established, statesmanship shall then start dawning as a necessary adjunct. May Allah bless Bangladesh, its people and leaders.