Who is responsible for cooperation, non-cooperation and violence?

There are ideological differences among political parties in almost all countries of the world. But this does not mean that they will keep the other out of the election field or stay away from the elections. Whoever is in power in Bangladesh tries to sway the elections in his favor and makes strategies accordingly. The BNP government first created controversy by increasing the age limit for judges. Before the full decision of the court in this regard came, the Awami League government further increased the controversy by removing the caretaker government system from the Constitution.

We also have to remember that the caretaker system is not ideal for elections in any country. But when a political leadership loses all competency, capacity and impartiality to conduct free and fair elections, a caretaker or non-partisan government has no option. For the sake of argument, if we say that the Awami League abolished the caretaker system to maintain the spirit of the Constitution, the question still remains as to why they could not hold free, fair and inclusive elections in 2014 and 2018? Why was the latter election even more controversial than the former?

Even though both sides had taken a tough stand before October 28, people were hopeful that they would eventually reach a consensus. But instead of reaching consensus, both sides took up almost front-line fighting positions. The government jailed thousands of BNP leaders and workers on charges of ‘terrorism and subversion’. And BNP adopted strikes, blockades and non-cooperation as last resort in its movement. Opposition parties in Bangladesh have held strikes and blockades before, but this is the first time that a call for non-cooperation has been made. At the height of the unrest during March 1971, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had called for a non-cooperation movement against the Pakistani rulers, and people from all walks of life actively followed it. Bangladesh has been following the directions of Bangabandhu. Now the situation is completely different.

Before launching its programme, BNP did not even consult the 63 other parties involved in the movement. It is not just the ruling Awami League which has a Big Brother-like attitude. BNP also has the same attitude. “BNP has not discussed this matter with us, but we have moral support to this programme,” a senior Gantantra Manch leader said on a private TV channel show.

Then, there are questions about the type of non-cooperation. BNP has called on people not to pay gas, water and electricity bills and not to conduct bank transactions. The first thing is whether BNP has the strength to challenge the government and administration in this way? Secondly, does the BNP believe that people will collectively refuse to pay their electricity, gas and water bills and stop their bank transactions? Calling for programs to which people will not respond will further weaken and isolate the party.

Spread the love

We may earn a commission if you click on the links within this article. Learn more.