"To compromise" or "Being compromised"
A government bourne out of 1/11 should never hesitate to compromise as long as that is expected to benefit the general people. The most important lesson of 1/11 is "to compromise" - that should not be left out as a choice. However, government should never put the interest of general people in a position of being compromised.
It could be successfully argued that democracy is essentially an art of compromise - in its ideal form. However, our intelligentia, our press do not have enough gray materials to understand this basic premise. To them, when someone takes an uncompromising stand in national politics, they praise those stands to such an extend that the poor leaders forget the real purpose of politics which always should be the goodwill of the general people. Instead of giving a realistic feedback for their actions and policy stands, they create monsters out of gullible human being. A sad story of that trend is the creation of 1/11. However, that was just the final outcome, it started long back. Thats a long history, so, lets try to focus on today's topic.
In the current context, if government continue to make apparent concessions, is that a bad sign? Does that mean the excercise of last 18 months is all in vain? We don't think the answer to that is so straightforward. Making compromise is a good thing, we would rather argue. However, in doing so, government's main goal can't be compromised, the governments major policies can't be compromised. If Hasina or Khaleda needs some special treatment compared with other corruption accused, and if government accomodates those needs, that should not be seen as a sign of weakness. However, in doing so, if government deviates from its policy goal, then, these compromises will certainly be seen as a sign of weakness and there is a chance that the interest of general people will be compromised.
We are still talking in indirect terms. Lets make another effort to clarify.
With reference to a previous article that originated from Innovation Line titled "
The raw deal that general people of Bangladesh is
getting", one could say the recent developments with regards to certain political leaders' accomodation is the direct result of activating one important segment of the power-brokers in Bangladesh (read: bureacracy) who were so far out of focus of the people's attention. They became consious that peoples' wrath might target them eventually! The cabinet secretaries (past or present) have access to the nerve of the govt. machinery and they are afraid the focus may turn into something more intense. So, things have started to move.
Off course, this is just a hypothesis. But if this is true, then what? Is the government compromising or is the government being compromised?
The politicians of the past and their co-conspirators would like you to believe that government is being compromised, things are going in the wrong direction, etc etc.
However, we would ask you to hold your judgement. Check for yourself. Go to a government office where you may have something to do. Almost all the offices have citizen's charter by now. Consult the relevant charter and set a realistic expectation about what kind of service delivery you should expect from the officers concerned. Also, make sure that you know what to do if something does not go as per your expectation (e.g. the charter should say something about remedial measure if you do not get your promised service). Try to experience as many services as possible as soon as possible from the government.
If majority of your experiences are bad and if nothing happens when you have to complain, and if, this is the same story with most of the citizens of the country with most of secretariat, then you have to conclude that bureacracy is making deals with the corrupt politicians. And the fate of general people is being compromised. If a trend becomes clear, we forecast that there will be a time when each of the living cabinet secretaries will have to face a similar fate of the top politicians. And that will happen soon, not 10 years, but much earlier. You can put money on this forecast.
However, if majority of your experiences are good, if things are improving - that will mean that Dr. Fakhruddin's strategy is working. What is the strategy? You have to read the above mentioned article for that. [
The raw deal that general people of Bangladesh is
getting] Also, the state should not be made a matter of laughing stock. If the paroles are for certain time-periods, those time limits should be honored.
Aren't you tired of these conspiracy theory type opinions? If you are, we fully sympathize with you. Because we are also tired of that. So, lets try to think differently, something positive that we always try to do.
If the government was really interested about solving the problems through dialogue and given the stance of the two big political parties (who says they can't think for themselves), then government would have arrange an dialogue between Khaleda and Hasina. Or at least let these two arrested leaders have a live video conference and try to come up with a common national goal. If they did that, then, we would have thought we, as a nation, have actually learned something important from 1/11. We say that because none of these might not have happened if these two ladies' could have a sane conversation between them during the end of 2006.
Are we talking about getting Hasina and Khaleda face-to-face conversation? Are we kidding? No, we are not. If those stupids of the traditional political parties do not have any gray materials in their head, then why not let these two talk out of the impasse. Lets see what kind of vision these two can create among themselves. But can they really talk, let alone making a conversation? One may ask. Thats an important question for which we don't know the answer.
Well, if they can't talk, then what the government should do? Then government should gather all the editors of the newspapers and the chiefs of news of all the tv channels and give them prime time tv slots to explain to the people of Bangladesh, why they always talk about, write about these two worthless persons who can't even have a conversation between them. The biggyo sompadok brindo should have a good explanation and they might show us a good way out.
Well, we are not being helpful here, you are thinking, right? I know. Ki aar kora.. lets give it another try.
The pshyche of the people has been broken in every aspect. The pride is not there, the peace is not there and even a good hearted compromise is being questioned. We spend many hours for blaming our father's generation. And we do that with a very good intention and we consider this as a service to our homeland. Surprising, isn't it?
But all is not in vain. Things are moving - in the right direction. People are having more voice. What is missing is a rudder. Overall, the national politics is still rudderless. People do not see anything promising yet, around which they can identify themselves. The leader is yet to show up.
The good news is exciting time is coming during next six months. A lot of elections! Hopefully, things will get better over time.
In the meantime, we would like to finish this article with expressing our gratitude to two person from our father's generation - these two person are like father to many of our generation. They are none other than Forhad Mozhar and Abdullah Abu Sayeed.
Both of you have touched many of our generation directly and indirectly. A big thank you to both of you. Both of you have the pulse of the youth, may be from different perspective. But thats ok, life enriches with variety.
We are just curious if the government arranged a conversation between these two personalities who have influenced the lives of many of the youths during last few decades, can they have sane conversation between them and help guide the nation to develop a way forward? Do you think they can do that? No?
If even they can't have a sane conversation, then why are we blaming Hasina or Khaleda! We really hope government taps into these two personality (and may be there are others) and let them have a marathon public conversation among them. If things goes in the right direction, if they can build a concensus among themselves, may be then, government can take their service as policy advisors who can guide the government in developing a final understanding with the political parties.
If you thought some of the ideas are worth of your reading time, please forward it to others. If you have an ear to the columnists in regular traditional media, please forward it to them. If you have an ear to the journalists and news editors of the electronic media, discuss it with them. Hope they would look at the suggestions and give due diligence.
Thanks for your time,
Innovation Line
=======================================================
Note: This is a freelance column, published mainly in different internet based forums. This column is open for contribution by the members of new generation, sometimes referred to as Gen 71. If you identify yourself as someone from that age-group and want to contribute to this column, please feel free to contact. Thanks to the group moderator for publishing the article as Creative Commons contents.
__._,_.___
[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.
* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]
__,_._,___
The bimonthly U.S. international affairs journal Foreign Policy has just published a survey of the world's top 20 public intellectuals and the first 10 are all Muslims. They are certainly an interesting group of men (and one woman) but the journal's editors are not convinced they all belong on top. In their introduction in the July/August issue, they wrote: "Rankings are an inherently dangerous business." It turns out that some candidates ran publicity campaigns on their web sites, in interviews or in reports in media friendly to them. So intellectuals who many other intellectuals might have put at the top — say Noam Chomsky or Richard Dawkins — landed only in the second 10 or in a much more mixed list of post-poll write-ins.
