Bangladesh’s third force emerging from the muddle

Although consigned to the heap of their discredited past, the two Bangladesh leaders - former Prime Ministers Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia - are as important today for the country as they were yesterday. There is, however, one difference. Then they drew power from the office they occupied, either as prime minister or opposition leader. Today, their strength is because of political parties they head: the Awami League by Sheikh Hasina and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) by Khaleda Zia. Unfortunately, they have reduced their respective party to personal fiefdom, with no internal democracy, no accountability. Since they do not think they are answerable to anybody, no amount of exposure of their corruption and that of their relatives and associates has made them to quit.

Bangladesh has endured corruption and criminality for so many years. If those who are responsible for it were to escape punishment, the society or politics would suspect that the cleansing was selective. Whatever has become public is enough to make them withdraw from public life. It is believed that the Election Commission may soon draft necessary rules to debar such persons from the polls.

It is, however, unfair to paint Hasina and Khaleda with the same brush. However wanting, Hasina has a long record of sacrifices and sufferings. Her father, Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman, founded the Awami League which had deep roots. The party is intertwined with the country's liberation struggle and its culmination. But then, Hasina is not the party. She has, in fact, pulled it down from the pre-eminent position it enjoyed. On the other hand, Khaleda's BNP, was started by her husband General Zua-ul Rahman who, no doubt, was part of the liberation struggle but said to have flinched when it came to saving the Sheikh from assassination. Khaleda never stirred out of cantonment and, therefore, the BNP never reached the grassroots. Her sons, as their acts of corruption reveal, used the party for their own ends.

What surprises me is that even the top functionaries in the two parties have continued to play to the tune of the two ladies. Members in each party are so afraid that they dare not question their leaders so long as they are present. Even the stalwarts feel that their party will not go far without them. It is a Catch-22 situation: you cannot do one thing until you do another thing, but you cannot do the second thing until you do the first one. Anything meaningful will fail if the two ladies do not cooperate.

The army, which is behind the caretaker government, is said to have hinted to both to leave the country and stay out until after the elections which are scheduled to be held at the end of next year. At one time, Khaleda was willing to live abroad provided her son, Tariq, facing the charges of swindling the country of enormous amount of money, accompanied her.

The arrangement fell through because the two countries she preferred, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, refused to give her a visa. Lately, Sheikh Hasina's return to Bangladesh has made Khaleda stay put. Still, she is too vulnerable to say 'no'. Even otherwise, her stock and that of her party has hit rock bottom. But she is keenly watching what is happening to Hasina and both are reportedly in touch with each other.
Hasina is a hard nut to crack. She or, for that matter, the Awami League, has support in every hamlet in Bangladesh. It is the Indian National Congress of the old days. Yet, the serious instances of corruption involving Hasina and her close relations may make her ask for a reprieve. The government is waiting for that moment. At one time, it appeared as if she had decided to stay in America with her daughter for some years. But then the smell of elections brought her back. The manner in which she was restrained in London from travelling to Dhaka and ultimately allowed to return home revived her image in the media, much to the embarrassment of the caretaker government.

Probably, Hasina could have been handled better. She could have been given a choice, either to face the numerous charges of corruption against her and her family or agree to quit politics for some years. Murmurs in her party have begun to be heard. A few days ago two or three of party stalwarts told in her face to go while the going was good. It is reported that she is considering the option of going to America this July.

If Hasina does not quit - Khaleda has ceased to matter much - there is a possibility of a third force emerging. It may be a long, uncertain haul. But there may be no other option. Mohammed Yunus, the Nobel Prize winner, was a better bet. He would have attracted liberal elements from the Awami League, the Left and the intellectuals to present a viable alternative. But he was too quick to throw his hat in the ring and too quick to withdraw, leaving his admirers and supporters high and dry.

Clean and intelligent Kamal Hussain is emerging as an alternative. He was the first Bangladesh foreign minister. He was close to the Sheikh. Kamal's long tenure and popularity in the Awami League was cut short by Hasina who suspected him of challenging her. His fault was that he was insistent on introducing internal democracy in the party. What goes against him is that he has not soiled his hands at the grassroots politics. Kamal knows he will need to do that if Hasina remained in command. The Awami League may rally around him in her absence.

The opposition to him may come from the party second rung of leadership. But since it does not have a clean record, it has no credentials to fight against Kamal. The third rung of the Awami League leadership is idealistic but raw. Kamal who has stayed in public life without making compromises may attract this rung.

If this happens, it would be a good development for the country. Much will depend on Hasina's decision to quit. If she does not, it looks as if Kamal is determined not to let the present opportunity go waste. He may forge a front of such parties and intellectuals who believe in running the country on principles and who want to break away from personal and power politics in which Bangladesh has remained stuck.

The army may accept the third force because it would have the satisfaction of not leaving the country to those who had dirtied the Bangladesh waters. Still the people would have to make the choice between the third force and the recalcitrant Awami League at the time of election. One only hopes that people will make the right choice.