- Copy to clipboard
- Thread starter
- #26
Extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary measures
BANGLADESH, following the overthrow of an extremely repressive government of the Awami League, in the face of a great democratically oriented student-mass uprising and subsequent voluntary disappearances of all the League leaders from the country’s political scene, obviously with a view to...
www.newagebd.net
Extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary measures
Nurul Kabir 10 October, 2024, 00:10
Nurul Kabir 10 October, 2024, 00:10
BANGLADESH, following the overthrow of an extremely repressive government of the Awami League, in the face of a great democratically oriented student-mass uprising and subsequent voluntary disappearances of all the League leaders from the country’s political scene, obviously with a view to escaping court proceedings for their political, economic and criminal offences, is now passing through a critically important transitional phase of history. The great July movement, which culminated in prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s resignation and fleeing to India on August 5, apparently looked like a ‘revolution’, which many a politician and intellectual of the country still call it adorably, but in essence it was not. By the simplest definition, a ‘revolution’ is a political Event that overthrows one class of people from power by another class, enabling the winning class to build its own state machinery on the debris of that of the defeated one. And, obviously, such a revolution takes place under the leadership of an organised revolutionary party with a philosophically thought-out set of political, economic and cultural agenda, to be implemented in the post-revolution society.
The victorious July movement of the masses — more than 80 per cent of some 1,500 martyrs of and some 22,000 critically injured in the movement came from under-privileged sections of society — has definitely overthrown the autocratic regime of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, but the autocratic state machine that successive governments of the country’s ruling class have built up in Bangladesh since its birth and Hasina’s has further brutalised it over a decade and half remains intact with all its repressive laws, rules, policies, resources and practices.
Moreover, despite enormous courage, profound commitment and great tactical skills of the student leaders, who transformed their initial anti-job quota agitation eventually into a mass movement for the ouster of the League government, they were not a homogenous force organised under a revolutionary party with a comprehensive revolutionary agenda.
They are, in fact, a patriotic group of courageous young boys and a few girls, coming from different political traditions and containing heterogeneous politico-philosophical thoughts. Not surprisingly, the young leadership of the successful mass uprising invited, visibly ignoring the exiting constitution of the state, Professor Muhammad Younus, a Nobel peace laureate of particularly western repute, who might have been in prison if Hasina had continued in power for a few more months, to lead an ‘interim government’ to carry out certain ‘reforms’ — political, constitutional and economic, et cetera, and hold free and pair national elections for transferring power to an elected authority. The political parties and the national army have complied with wishes of the students. This is an extraordinary time.
Meanwhile, the young group of student leaders is learnt to be trying to launch a political party of their own while it has not yet formulated any manifesto and agenda for the planned party. It is, indeed, impossible to determine the political characteristic of a political party in the making — revolutionary or reformist — without analysing its manifesto and agenda. Hence, at this point of history, this is irrelevant to talk about the ‘revolutionary imposition of a revolutionary agenda by a revolutionary party’.
Under such a circumstance, the question arises as to what kind of reforms the interim government of Professor Yunus intends to carry out and in how much time it should accomplish its interim agenda. The Yunus administration has, meanwhile, announced half a dozen commissions to prescribe — in 90 days of the constitution — constitutional, electoral, judicial, public administration, police and anti-corruption mechanism reforms. It has not issued any political and philosophical guideline/s for the commissions to make recommendations to base on. Thus, the citizens concerned are left with nothing but speculating about the possible nature of the recommendations to come, and that too, based on the personal politico-philosophical orientations of the individual members of the commissions.
Bangladesh essentially needs democratic reforms in almost every sector of its collective life while the most important one being the democratisation of the constitution of its state. In a democratic dispensation, the constitution is expected to be a document reflecting the ‘general will’ of the people — the ‘sovereign’. It is the constitution that guarantees the legitimate rights of the citizens, on the one hand, and provides legitimate power for actors of different branches of the state to exercise, on the other. The constructional provisions of a democratic state, a republic in other words, must recognise the importance of the state to remain perpetually accountable to the ‘sovereign’ — the people, that is. Understandably, a genuine representation of different sections of the people — irrespective of their class, ethnic, gender and religious identities — is essential in the entire constitution making/reforming process, right from the beginning. Here, in the present case, the ‘beginning’ begins from the constitution of the ‘constitution reforms commission’ while the commission has only marginal representation of women, but it does not have any ‘representation’ from the national and religious minority communities, constituting a significantly large section of the country’s population having their own difficulties and aspirations in the existing undemocratic dispensation. Besides, despite the existence of many peasant and labour organisations in the country, no representation from these huge classes of people is there on the constitution reforms commission.
If morning shows the day, evidently, the interim government of Professor Yunus, which has appointed the commission, intends to offer the post-July mass-uprising Bangladesh a patriarchal, Bengali Muslim majoritarian piece of constitution of the state, ignoring the fact that the great mass uprising against autocracy was participated in and supported by, although by different degrees, all sections of the people — Bengalis and non-Bengalis, male and female, Muslims and non-Muslims, the rich and the poor.
If this is the kind of reforms that the interim government intends to carry out in other sectors as well, Bangladesh has no chance to get out the old political, economic and legal order. It should realise that an extraordinary situation, arising out of magnificent student-mass uprising that has generated new hopes and aspiration in society, needs extraordinary measures to fulfil the new demand of history — a genuinely democratic transformation of the pseudo-democratic republic.
Nurul Kabir is editor of New Age