Tue 19 Feb 2008
After a resounding no to military governence in the Thai election, now the Pakistani voters have spoken and the message could not be clearer. People have decided that they had enough of the Musharraf experiment. The writing is clear for anyone taking notes. However, this election had an added bonus. Pakistani voters have also routed the Islamic hardliners in this election. Ending with a note from a friend:
a defeat for the militarists and islamists anywhere is a victory for secular democracy everywhere. congratulations, pakistan. now my (perhaps rather naive!) heart wants the same thing for Bangladesh.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
There will be victory of the people (eventually !!). Not naive at all !!
Farhad
February 19th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
How about Bangladesh?
February 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
#1
It don’t come easy, my friend! For over half of its 60 years history Pakistan was under military rule. Bloodshed, corruption, dictatorship, army, assassination of opposition leaders, are the names of Pakistan. Still, it’s always good to see some rays of hope.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Bangladesh too !!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
the PPP … ’secular’ ‘democratic’?!?
Duas that good things happen in that country, good things that are real and of substance that cant be told by a voting result but are somehow modulated by it.
the bangladeshi mental pakistan complex continues. hilarious.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Musharraf cries out for help from Amrika
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102158.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I don’t think Pakistan has a future. It is only held together by the army. Kashmiri, Baluchi, Panjabi. These people have nought but Islam in common. This is not enough of a bond.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Shoudn’t Mr. Asif S. also congratulate the Thai and Pakistani military for creating the space for free and fair election to take place in these two countries.
No government no matter whether military, civilian, revolutionary or democratic cannot remain popular forever. But some commentators try to “spin” this fact and use it as a tool to discredit a certain person or group - in this case the Bangladesh army.
I will cite two recent examples to backup my view. Only recently Mr. Sarkozy of france was elected with overwhelming support but his poll ratings have plummeted in only a few months, where now a majority of French citizens don’t approve of his presidency.
Mr. Bush won a second term in office despite being despised by nearly half of the U.S. population and most of the world.
On 1/11 most Bangladeshis thanked the army for intervening and for putting a stop to political violence and lawlessness. Like any government public opinion will go up and down due to various economic, social and political evens. It happens in every country.
Every indication given by Mr. Moeen the EC and Dr. Fakhruddin gives me confidence that an election will be held by Dec 08. Electon or not, I personally don’t want the same faces that ruled Bangladesh before 1/11 to come back to power and I would urge the Army to make sure they don’t allow such thing from happening.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Mamun, not sure if spaces for free and fair election were missing before in thailand and pakistan.
Admittedly in Bangladesh, most of the people were relieved at the 1/11 intervention. But hardly anyone is appreciating their efforts to reengineer the political process. Of course, if they go out with a free and fair election in place and also by establishing due process and rule of law, they will be hailed again. But until that happens, everyone is holding their breath because our past experiences are so bad. So far, the formula adopted by the present regime in forming a Kings party has been not much different than previous military rulers like Zia and Ershad.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I think all of us should take note and be very clear about one thing. If there is a group of people you don’t want to see active in Bangladeshi politics again, you’re welcome to vote against them, to run in election against them, to sell all your life’s possessions and donate that money to an opposing cause, to be as vocal as you want in the media or internet against them, but don’t think it can be just as easy as asking the army to selectively ban some people from our country’s politics and the army doing so. This mindset has been the biggest source of problems ever since 1/11.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Asif and mamun - good discussion. Political engineering is necessary to change our FAILED system of governance.
The old faces of pre 1/11 should never return to power again. That possibility should not even be an option on the table.
Allow me to be a bit philosophical here -
Yesterday the militarists won
today the electioneers won
tomorrow the corruptionists will win
But all along, the PEOPLE always LOST.
So Pakistan may have staged an election victory - but who are the players? - good old Nawaz and Zardari !! The same fish in the kettle - who failed to give people a SYSTEM for establishing governance, rule of law and accountability, - those who created their own “1/11″ situation.
Unless and until a system of GOVERNANCE is established whereby ‘division of power’ ‘checks and balance’ and parliamentary governance are effective, then the mere ACT of an election will remain just a farce.
Because 5-10 years from now, these civilians will do “just the same” politics, and create the same “1/11″ for army to return and clampdown their chronic failures.
Election may give civilians some govt posts, but it does not ALONE give people ‘democracy’. An election alone, no matter how free and fair, is useless until governance is pragmatized.
Therefore PEOPLE must ask for more (not just ann election).
Otherwise, islamists, militarists, electioneers and corruptionists will be the WINNERS - but people will always remain the LOSERS.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Our military backed CTG thought that if they follow Musharraf formula, our leaders will also follow Bhutto and Nawaz.But SH and KZ are not cowards like Bhutto and Nawaz, they decided to stay in the country and face the corruption charges. Their bold decision put this CTG into big trouble. Now the equation of minus 2 has become too complex and our generals do not know how to solve this equation. they are coming up with new theories, national GOVT, NSC and latest addition is the new brand of democracy, invented by our chief of army. Army, CTG, ‘Shushil shomaj’…so many forces are employing so many inputs just to get rid of these 2 women…hilarious…really.CTG has staged good no of dramas so far and waiting to see the last one…Election 2008.
People who think that AL/BNP or SH/KZ should not be allowed to come into power need to invent “Mogoz dholai Jontro” like ‘Hirok rajar deshe’.Unless you put 15 crore people on that “mogoz dholai Jontro”, it will be AL/BNP again.
February 24th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
#12
Nobody wants to stop AL/BNP from returning, nor even SH/KZ.
But what needs to be done is to first setup ‘a system of GOVERNANCE whereby ‘division of power’ ‘checks and balance’ and parliamentary governance are effective’ - BEFORE they return, and before elections.
That is why “re-engineering” of politics is so critical, and that is what our CTG are TRYING to formulate.
Pakistan has NOT done that homework fully yet. When their civilians return, they will return to the “same old” political circus again - followed by another 1/11.
Unless you want to return to pre-1/11, or CONTINUE the Pakistan formula of politics of FRAUD, then you MUST be prepared to “re-engineer” our governance.
Here is yet another basic move taken by CTG within a year, which our pre-1/11 “leaders” failed to do in 15 years, despite all your trust upon them:
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=24672
February 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
The inconsistencies of some bloggers really surprise me sometimes. Around 1/11 time, SH and KZ was public enemy number one because of their violence provocating practices, failed administrations, widespread nepotism, and promotion of corruption. Some did prefer one over the other. Now they are the heroes. Hai Selucas..
We all wanted qualitative changes in our political leadership. The CTG has the same goal, but yes, their method is questionable. I don’t think the way they are trying to bring about this change is effective and right. But that doesn’t make anybody else a hero. I personally don’t want the pre-11 faces (except a few) to comeback, but if people vote for them (since they’ll have no other choice than choosing the lesser evil), I guess I’ll have to respect that.
I have heard the term ‘Musharraf-style’ or ‘Musharraf-like’ many times and mostly in the bloggosphere. To lump together situation in Pakistan with Bangladesh lacks insight in the sheer aspect that the Bangladesh situation and mass psyche is quite different than Pakistan and has always been. Moreover, we have to remember that Musharraf formed his own political party and clung to power for 8 years, whereas, so far the CTG with all their many sins, haven’t shown signs of staying in power or trying to cling to it in any other ways. We are criticizing them for a crime they did not commit. But if they stay on, I will be among the first ones to write against them.
They have failures (price hikes and others), but doesn’t every govt? They have done many things wrong (DU student tortures and handling of political prisoners without due process, sometimes gagging the media, etc), we should continue to condemn them on these. But they have done many things right also. And we should recognize them.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:31 am
#14,
So if I criticize KZ/SH for abuse of power or nepotism, I cannot appreciate their decision to stay in the country? Is there any rule in DP forum that we have to maintain consistency while criticizing or recognizing someone’s action?
you and I know that Bangladesh situation and mass psyche is quite different than Pakistan, problem is that our currrent rulers do not know this fact and they miscalculated the minus 2 formula.They thought that SH and KZ will leave the country in fear of corruption charges and people who are frustrated about these 2 ladies will also support this move.Both assumptions were wrong.
Advisors of CTG have not shown any intention to stay in power but we have seen that new political parties have been formed during emergency, they are playing vital role to support all kinds of ‘reform’
of CTG. A leader from this party recently told in a TV talk show that if reform is not complete by the end of this year, this Govt should be allowed to stay another 1 or 2 years and AL/BNP should take rest for another 10/15 years. This kind of statements
from the selected speakers by this GOVT raises questions of their intention.Talk of NSC, national Govt all these are attempts to ensure “khobordari” of military in political field.There is always lack of accountability and transparency and right now we cannot say that key players of this Govt do not have any political ambition.
We are not criticizing CTG for a crime they did not commit. we are being vigilant about this extra constitutional Govt so that we don’t have to wait another 8/9 years to return to democracy like Pakistan.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:35 am
In response to 14.
Fighting for the soul of Banglash
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\12\17\story_17-12-2007_pg3_4
Ayesha Siddiqa is a scholar specializing in military & security affairs & the author of the recent well received book entitled, “Military Inc, Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy”. She did her doctorate from King’s College London in 1996 and has worked on issues varying from military technology, defense decision-making, nuclear deterrence, arms procurement, arms production to civil-military relations in South Asia.
In their eagerness not to be compared to Pakistan, the Bangladeshis have failed to notice that they are slowly creeping towards a situation subtly comparable to Pakistan and that if they are not careful, the military would soon begin to play a decisive role in the country’s politics
Talk to an average Bangladeshi about civil-military relations and they will tell you that their country is not like Pakistan and that they will never allow the military to take control of politics.
Unfortunately, in their eagerness not to be compared to Pakistan, the Bangladeshis have failed to notice that they are slowly creeping towards a situation subtly comparable to Pakistan and that if they are not careful the military would soon begin to play a decisive role in the country’s politics. They must also realise that the elite of any country might be as myopic as that of any other country and may push the country to political disaster.
Bangladesh started its transition to democracy in 1991 when public protests put an end to the rule of General Ershad who had taken over after the assassination of his predecessor General Zia-ur-Rehman. Since then, the army has not returned to politics. Bangaldeshi political historians always forget the botched coup attempt of 1996 when Generals Naseem and Hilal Murshad conspired to take over. Had the military been fully professional then, which means tightly organised as a hierarchy, it would have managed to take control of the government. The fact that the conspiring generals did not have good communication channels with the battalion guarding Dhaka and could not convince some generals to move from strategic positions saved the country. So, in 1996, there were elements in the army who had the ambition to gain power.
However, the civilian rulers entered into an informal partnership with the military according to which the government would ensure the military’s interest in return for the latter staying out of politics. This arrangement could be managed because the armed forces were not completely professional. The legacy of the Bangladeshi military is a mix of freedom fighters and officers repatriated from the United Pakistan armed forces. The friction between the two schools of thought did not allow for the kind of consolidation of perception and interests which would result in building up of a praetorian military. The officer cadre was further enticed into submission through the opportunities gained from participating in the UN peace keeping missions. Apart from the defence budget, the military depends on the UN to obtain resources for the gratification of its personnel.
Some of the UN money was later re-invested in exploring other possibilities for economic expansion by the armed forces. The Bangladeshi military has used some of this money as venture capital and established stakes in business and industry which is also a carry forward from the pre-1971 Fauji Foundation.
Since the past ten years, there have been three developments in Bangladesh which have had an impact on its politics.
First, the military has consolidated its corporate ethos and culture which means that the organisation is building cohesion within itself which it lacked earlier. Along with this, the military has also become more conscious of its interests, which includes personal stakes of the officer cadre. For a military which was basically meant to provide security against external threat to Bangladesh, the bulk has now become engaged in the UN peacekeeping missions. Whether peace-keeping missions are the core task of a professional military is a moot point.
Second, a gap has emerged between the people and the political leadership. The politicians have become more intensely authoritarian and myopic in their thinking. Such a transformation is not new but dates back to the times soon after the country was born. However, the predatory instinct of the politicians has intensified resulting in policies which would destabilise the country.
Third, there is the development of an equally predatory middle class which is willing to use the military as a secondary partner to change the current political arrangement. Since the Bangladeshi political system is patronage-based, the common man is not able to look beyond Sheikh Hasina and Khalida Zia. The problem of the educated middle class, on the other hand, is that while it is not willing to ‘soil their hands’ in the ‘dirty game of politics,’ they would like to take power away from these two female leaders. Resultantly, the educated middle class is quite happy to use the military and unfair political means to change the domestic scene.
For instance, while making a speech in Canberra the Bangladeshi advisor on foreign affairs claimed that the caretaker setup in the country denoted the rule of ‘Baudhulouk’. This term means educated and more capable; it was traditionally used by the Calcutta elite to refer to themselves. The underlying message of the gentleman, which more or less represents the perception of the educated middle class, is that there are new groups which are ready to replace the old leadership. Since mass politics is too dirty a game, these new power aspirants will use unfair means and the military to negotiate power. These people would rather have military help them with some rigging than let Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khalida Zia return to power.
Surely, the two ladies must share their part of the blame for letting things come to this point. The misuse of power and ill-conceived policies rarely bring fruit. For example, the BNP strategically encouraged the Jama’at and other religious extremist factions to their own advantage. Interestingly, Khalida Zia was not the only beneficiary of cultivating religious extremism. The military benefited both directly and indirectly. A more rightist society is bound to be more nationalistic in a narrow sense.
However, the problem is that using the military is never a good option. This is not an organisation which can be trusted to remain a junior partner once the civilian policymakers and stakeholders begin to use it to gain power.
Pakistan’s example is a case in point. The 1958 coup by the civil bureaucracy was not meant to bring in the military. But once General Ayub decided to take over power, there was nothing which could stop him. Sadly, we are still unable to check the military from gaining power.
Any Bangladeshi might argue that their armed forces and society are different. They will not let the military rule for long nor will the army try to come into power directly. There are two points which are worth making.
First, the army does not necessarily have to come directly into power. The organisation could become influential while remaining in the back seat and yet constantly destabilise politics.
Second, the Bangladeshi ruling elite is no different from any other, especially when we look at the manner in which it has sought to use authoritarianism and military force to its own advantage. They, like any other short-sighted and predatory elite, have completely forgotten that people are not to be taken for a ride. Too much tempering with the masses, the propensity to use extra-constitutional methods for transfer of power, and inability to deliver services to the public leads to a certain disenchantment amongst the common people. The people no longer take active interest in politics nor do they offer their lives to stand up for right against wrong; in any case, after a while, they are unable to tell the difference.
The Bangladeshi state and society at this point is very close to getting on the track of Pakistan’s politics. Its elite and middle class must evaluate the advantage of using short-term versus long-term perspective to life and politics.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
# 16 Asif S.
An excellent analysis of the current situation in Bangladesh. This should go out as an independent post in the blog.
Farhad
February 26th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Some excellent points, Asif. Thanks for recognizing the fact that Bangladesh Military has been gaining power and extending their enterprises for the last 30 years and it did not happen overnight in the last one year. Even the leaders of our ‘new found democracy’ resorted to pampering the army and went beyond national means to keep them happy. If you want to emphasize on defense budget cuts and shunning the corporate entity of the army, then I am with you. It should have been done a long time ago and it should be done now. But I don’t quite agree that army as an entity equals ‘something bad’ in the context of national development or politics. They can be ‘used’ in various aspects for developmental works and can play a role in national emergencies. Remember, most of the people welcomed 1/11 interference of the army. You have made a good case of army gaining power taking advantage of weak democracies. A short-term protest now is also a short-term solution. They may be gone today, but they’ll continue to grow under the wings of so called democratic governments. The process of army gathering strength may or may not have gained momentum during this CTG, to curb it is incumbent upon the democratic governments to come.
Not taking initiatives is a major characteristic of our educated middle class, true, but many of them have ‘soiled their hands’ in the ‘dirty game of politics’ only to repeatedly end up with ‘soiled’ hands and nothing to show for it. The disenchantment of the mass including the middle class with the political leaders weigh much higher than their disenchantment with the CTG. I think more thoughts should be put into why our middle class is taking a stand which is not their usual. They have been, directly or indirectly, the victims of our political instability, corruption, and partisanship by AL-BNP-JP-JI. They are running the risk of another army takeover knowingly for the hope of a better change. It is a trade off. As you’ve pointed out (#9), if this CTG holds a free and fair election and set up checks and balances for establishment of rule of law, they’ll be hailed again. Although, middle class is silent, they are holding their breath, too. You call them ‘myopic’, I say ‘desperate’. I guess we’ll know by December, how much our state and society has become like that of Pakistan’s.
You said, “..So far, the formula adopted by the present regime in forming a Kings party has been not much different than previous military rulers like Zia and Ershad.” Could you please elaborate on this a little? I would like to hear more on this.
On the side note: The Thai scenario
Long story short: Thaksin govt was extremely corrupt, people took to the street, military intervened, held a free and fair election, Thaksin’s party got near majority and came to power through alliance with 6 small parties. Here is the irony:
“..But on Tuesday, the 72-year-old firebrand, once called a “devil” by democracy activists for his support of past right-wing military regimes, was formally voted in as Thailand’s 25th prime minister by the country’s first elected parliament since the Generals took power. “
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1708090,00.html
The future option is of course, his majesty, Mr. Thaksin Sinawatra.
If the elections are held in December, Bangladesh will look more like Thailand, not Pakistan.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:51 am
#16 Asif S, thanks for the interesting comment from Pakistan.
I hate to disagree with Ayesha Siddiqa on her comments, the good news is Bangladesh is nowhere near the sorry state of Pakistan.
In fact BD has already past that hurdle of Pak-Style military Fauzi Awam, after the two stints of Ershad and Zia - and I strongly believe BD military has MATURED a lot since 1991, alongwith their UN and international experiences in national security operations.
So although there is always a concern with army (that it will follow Pak army), there is even much WORSE concern with letting the CIVILIANS LOOSE in an uncontrolled and un-planned “shadhin desh” where loot-pat and orojokota is also “SHADHIN” (that they will follow Pak politicians).
Ms Siddiqa provides no answer - what is the solution to runaway corrupt and unruly politicians (without a more superior force to contain them), in the ABSENCE of a more accountable system of governance?
It is easy to blame the army, but she should focus more on long AND short-term solutions for accountable good GOVERNANCE with civilian politics.
Otherwise it gives us little reason to take (anti-military) advice from a Pakistani, when her own nation is drowning in “failed state” political corruption.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
KGazi,
The solution to problems with democracy is more democracy and strong democratic institutions to which everyone including the military and powerful politicians are accountable. There is no shortcut. The soltution does not lie in command “democracy” by unaccountable people. The article points that out quite clearly.
Shahed I.
The new Jatiyotabadi front in the making is very similar to the way Zia started Jagodol and Ershad started jatiyo front which eventually became BNP and Jatiyo party respectively. The difference between other times is that those were done under martial law and this is done under a civilian facade. As for the status of the political reform, I explained it here:
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/11/08/its-a-mess/
February 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
#20, Asif,
However Bangladesh does not have a “command” democracy, its one year of corrective governance has been exemplary in the strengthening of democracy, for the next stage - the kind of strengthening that should have been done in parliament, by competent leadership.
Yet, Ms Siddiqa’s analysis of SH and KZ’s failures was far short of reality - the ineffectiveness of failed Pak-BD politics was missing in her comments.
No nation should continue like pre-1/11 just for the sake of civilian rule, its just too destructive to humanity.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
A quotation from George Washington, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
No one should argue that accountability is a must. The sticky point is who and why appointed army as the accountant general?
February 27th, 2008 at 1:23 am
#22-
why not army?
If the pre-1/11 govt were totally un-accountable, super-powerful and troublesome, yet running a dysfunctional police, judiciary and parliament, and if the only system of governance was extortion, hartal, oborodh, and logi-boitha - then HOW ELSE would a nation remove them?
If not the army, then how?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:28 am
There is a fundamental difference between the current military govt. and any other military govt. This govt., unlike any other military govt., is not sparing even the pro-govt. elements. Otherwise, how ACC is filing cases against the so-called ‘reformist’ politicos like Saifur Rahman and Mannan Bhuiyan? This govt, unlike any other military govt., is also not pampering the fundamentalists like Nizami/Mujahid. Otherwise, how these religion-peddlers could be implicated in the Barapukuria coal mine case? And, why is the present govt. going after institutional corruption if it is as corrupt as any other military regime?
I think the current rulers are on the way to create an atmosphere where black money can no longer play a decisive role in elections, and which can lead to true democracy in the long run. One should applaud the Army for this, though they are not supposed to rule the country, as only the Army has showed that they can act as a deterrent to political criminalization. They should also be credited for creating an environment where none, not even any defence person, can think that he/she is above law. However, as everything has a price, some human rights violations and excesses cannot be avoided in the short run, as Bangladesh now simply does not have any option other than Army rule to have an election that can ultimately lead to the end of the mafias.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:20 am
#20
The ‘new Jatiyotabadi front in the making’ - Are you referring to the new parties or reformed BNP ?