Solution lies not in repressive measures
As usual, New age does a cracker of a job with its editorial.
The spark of discontent that the assault on some students and a teacher of Dhaka University by some army men created on August 20 has now turned into a wildfire of dissent. The spontaneous protest, which has been spearheaded by general students without any political leadership, is no longer limited to the Dhaka University campus and has now spread across the capital and elsewhere in the country. The government has visibly tried different means to quell the unrest, including an expression of regret about the August 20 incident and withdrawal of the temporary army camp from Dhaka University. However, it has not called the police off the street although it is the excesses of the law enforcers that pushed the situation to such a pass. Until and unless the government reins in the truncheon-wielding, rubber bullet-spraying, teargas-firing policemen, the tension on the ground will continue.
Notably, as the unrest spread into different corners of the country, a large section of the non-student populace, especially poor and low-income sections of society, has joined the students in the agitation. They shouted slogans against the government for its failure to contain the soaring prices of essential commodities and for its not-so-effective steps to create a democratic environment in society and the state. More importantly, the slogans gave expression to their pent-up grievances against the emergency power rules. In the course of the protest, vehicles were damaged and a number of commercial and business offices vandalised. That the attackers were mostly people from the poor and low-income sections of society and the vehicles and houses belonged to affluent people suggests that the hostility was not only against the undemocratic system of governance but also against the economic order that allows concentration of wealth to a select few. In such circumstances, the government should have tried to identify the root causes behind the public outburst and accordingly initiate remedial political and economic steps. Regrettably, the incumbents decided to take the path of repression. They arbitrarily closed down all educational institutions and asked the students to vacate the halls of residence without giving them adequate time to do so. On top of it, they imposed indefinite curfew in the six divisional headquarters. Such repressive measures may quell the ongoing unrest; however, the public discontent will simmer on and will find manifestation in different forms and style, sooner than later.
If the interim government is really committed to maintaining order in society, it must revisit and renew the promises it made to the nation when assuming state power on January 11. Lest it should forget, the promises were for efficient and effective steps to democratise the political parties, prepare the ground for credible and contested elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad at the earliest, prosecute and punish the identified corrupt elements in society within the ambit of law, and make the economy dynamic. The government should, therefore, come out in the open with a renewed assurance to the public that it would make wholehearted efforts to keep the promises that it made. The redress to the increasing public discontent lies there, not in the repressive measure it has so far shown a pathological proclivity for.
Is the anti-corruption drive election-related?
The drive against corruption, to the extent it is fair and indiscriminate and without political motive, has received and will continue to receive un-stinted public support. But the emphasis here is on fair and indiscriminate and motiveless. A section of corrupt businessmen, acting in collusion with bureaucrats and corrupt politicians across the party divide, went on an unrelenting and unabashed money-making binge and spawned a monster of an all-pervasive corruption which sought to swallow all gains of development, to the extent that governance itself was becoming unsustainable. The reconstitution of the Anti Corruption Commission created new hopes in this regard. It is now for the commission to sustain popular trust by proving that it is an independent and upright organisation without any political or election-related agenda, is not an engine of the interim government and is built of a different material from that of its predecessor, the now-defunct Bureau of Anti-Corruption.
The people were watching with their fingers crossed and in the mean time certain disclosures have only added to their unease. The commission’s secretary told reporters that the commission has set a target of ensuring conviction of 150 bigwig corruption suspects, mainly politicians, big businessmen and bureaucrats, before the next general election. In the light of this statement a few questions will naturally arise. The fixing of the target number 150 before the anti-corruption campaign has got in its stride looks arbitrary and manipulative. On what basis will the drive stop at the number 150 and the 151st ‘bigwig’ be spared before investigation and processing have been completed? Is the objective to rid the country of corruption or to fulfil any target, quota, etc? This leads to the presumption that the commission is acting on the basis of a ‘list’ prepared in advance without reference to individual investigation report and gravity of an offence. And how can the commission ensure conviction which comes under the jurisdiction of the court? Is the commission sure that the courts will oblige? And why the emphasis on securing conviction ‘before general elections’? What has the commission to do with things like election, voting, politics, change of government? Why is it raiding the province of the Election Commission? Does it have, then, an election-related agenda aimed to disenfranchise certain individuals? The near-absence of bureaucrats and Jamaat-brand politicians among those arrested for corruption has already made the anti-corruption drive questionable.
When the commission’s chairman took over he vowed that ‘this time there shall be no retirement (referring to his voluntary walkout from the pre-emergency caretaker government) but there would be fight to the last’. This message was inspiring. Let not the fund of popular trust and goodwill thus created be depleted.