As I draft this piece, the Election Commission of Bangladesh (EC) is on the verge of convening a crucial meeting to finalize the schedule for the upcoming national parliamentary elections slated for the first week of January 2024. Concurrently, a correspondence dispatched by Mr. Donald Lu, the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs in the United States government, to three political parties - Bangladesh Awami League (AL), Bangladesh National Party (BNP), and Jatiya Party (JP) - has sparked substantial debates within the political sphere of Bangladesh.
It is widely acknowledged that the United States government has consistently applied pressure on the government of Bangladesh to ensure a free, fair and crediblenational parliament election. The advocacy in question has been reinforced by implementing a visa policy that now includes Bangladeshi politicians from both the government and opposition parties, as well as bureaucrats, law enforcement personnel, and judiciary members. The essential aspect of this visa policy is contingent upon the provision that the United States government would abstain from granting visas to persons belonging to these particular organizations implicated in actions that obstruct the holding of a free, fair and credible government. Incorporating an additional level of intricacy into this diplomatic maneuver, the United States ambassador stationed in Dhaka has proactively engaged with and been deeply involved in the political milieu. Nevertheless, this engagement has not been without controversy, as many have vehemently criticized his position, considering it a violation of diplomatic protocols.
Mr. Donald Lu sent a letter asking political factions to partake in unconditioned discussion to tackle the persisting tensions around the imminent national elections. The timing of this request for conversation raises a significant inquiry, given the EC's imminent declaration of the election timetable in the forthcoming days. Given the impending release of election dates, one may question if the current time is conducive for engaging in political conversations. The timeliness and imperative nature of these discussions at a critical juncture has prompted considerable contemplation over their prospective ramifications on the electoral procedure.
An issue of contention that has generated much disagreement pertains to the discerning strategy of focusing on three political parties amidst the numerous political parties inside Bangladesh's political sphere. The AL, BNP, and JP are widely recognized as major political entities. However, the absence of other notable parties raises concerns over the inclusivity of the diplomatic endeavor. Critics contend that incorporating a more comprehensive range of political parties can enhance the inclusivity and representativeness of the dialogue process.As the nation prepares for a vital election, it is imperative to comprehend the reasoning behind selecting these three parties for particular attention, perhaps marginalizing other parties that also hold significant positions within the political landscape.
Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the absence of a direct appeal to the BNP, urging them to refrain from participating in blockades and committing arson against vehicles during demonstrations. The lack of formal acknowledgement by the US government about these activities has been a subject of perplexity among certain observers, who have raised concerns about the possible implications on the stability and equity of the democratic process. Within the intricate political context of Bangladesh, the intervention made by Mr. Lu elicits apprehensions regarding both its timing and choice.
In the current political context of Bangladesh, the EC is operating under the deadline to organize the next election within a limited timeframe of 90 days. Despite making sincere efforts to initiate negotiations with other political groups, including the BNP, the EC has faced a dearth of favorable responses. As a result, the EC is compelled to abide by the current constitutional requirements that regulate the election process.
Against this contextual backdrop, the BNP has consistently advocated for the existing government's resignation and for forming a caretaker government to supervise the electoral process. Nevertheless, the attainability of the BNP's aims remains uncertain. The government, firmly dedicated to enabling the ECto organize a democratic election that is free, fair, and credible, presents a significant challenge to the BNP's requests. The conflict between these contrasting positions introduces intricacy to the evolving political landscape, placing the country on the approach of a pivotal electoral procedure guided by constitutional obligations.
The BNP seems to have failed to capitalize on a significant chance to leverage their demands since they have been unable to effectively impose pressure on the government. As a result, they are left with no feasible alternative than to participate in the forthcoming election. The party's leadership ought to recognize the gradual erosion of their influence and authority throughout the last decade and a half, characterized by their lack of political control. If they choose not to engage in the upcoming electoral process, their organizational strength will likely deteriorate further.
Given the current circumstances, it is improbable that Mr. Lu's proposition for political talks among the parties will lead to substantial outcomes. The timing of this appeal aligns with the forthcoming release of the election schedule, casting doubt on the potential for productive discussions. Furthermore, in its capacity as a sovereign state, Bangladesh should maintain the prerogative to establish the parameters of its electoral system, enabling its citizens to actively participate in determining the democratic trajectory.
The writer is a Professor in the Department of Public Administration at the
University of Rajshahi.