|
Changing scenario and consensus
Tanzeen R. Doha in California
Views and opinions about the constitutional legitimacy of the idea of consensus government remain superficial because it fails to address the role of political consensus in terms of cultural discourse. What does consensus mean in terms of the alienation of the general masses from the elite? What does it mean in terms of the changing definitions of "democracy" within global economy? These questions are not being answered by the writers, activists and elitist politicians. But there is much talk about the "feelings" related to the notion of a consensus government. The rhetorical content of these "feelings" vary according to each person's political affiliation. Beneath these feelings are intentions of power, greed, and social/political control.
There is no doubt about the consensus within the general public. This consensus is beyond the parameters of forced compromise. People understand through their sense of justice that the change in the political discourse is needed. This brings into the equation, the bipolarity and mediocrity of the two large parties. People are aware that the division of the ideologies is superficial, and the two parties are on a common platform of material accumulation and arrangement of social privilege.
Just attend a local wedding. The politicians unmask here; they habitually forget their political platform (party); communists, Bengalis, Bangladeshis, non-profit chiefs, sweat-shop owners, dramatists etc intermingle with one another and speak of the optimum arrangement of power-sharing. These strategies of power are evident in the newspaper headlines, and the space between these headlines and the day-to-day affairs of common folk remains a region requiring further analysis.
The real discourse of the people, which occur at the margins of power, in the teashops, amongst rickshaw-pullers, factory workers etc brings to life the silly-mindedness of politicians and their constant search for glory, the vulgarity of businessmen, the abuse of their children by authoritarian housewives, the misplaced liberalism of non-profit owners and cultural artists, and the utter dismay of contemporary political practice. This real discourse also directs itself to clearly understand the authorship of the "news" beyond the pretence of objectivity and underneath the literal sentences of "plain information" gathering there are multiple meanings of deviance from "truth", and servitude of the editors to the Euro-American colonisers' values.
People understand the multiple meanings of "democracy", the history of difference between its narrow theoretical definition, and social application. The very definition itself is subject to evaluation. People are aware that "democracy" is relative to the socio-political and economic context of a particular locale. They understand that the term comes with a history of Eurocentric values. They understand that there is in fact a grand difference between "democracy" as an ideal and egalitarianism as a value for just social arrangement.
They understand that the overtly optimistic term is subject to speculation, criticism, and if needed -- rejection. This has nothing to do with the denial of parliamentary system of elected officials. This has nothing to do with supporting extra-constitutional deals. It has everything to do with creativity, intelligence, and the symbiotic relationship between general people and discourse, and their intentional willingness of community-based governance. Political scepticism of the people did not flourish out of a vacuum. It is not a happenchance. It has been cultivated since the beginning of the nation, when the constitution itself was printed. One disappointment after another on a regular rhythm created an order of political madness -- a story of disruption, class-divided social system, corrupt interplay of politics and business, establishment of Bengali supremacy and continuous displacement of indigenous folk, hijacking of the egalitarian voice of Islam by Jamaat, and the paradoxical bourgeoisie control over the left causing the demise of Marxist politics.
How are we to deal with this reality? The post 1/11 period is considered by many as a historical juncture, a moment in our history that can provide us with a less violent, more tolerable, and economically improved future.
The caretaker government had a good beginning in terms of imprisoning and regulating corrupt politicians/ businessmen but to ensure a reformed political system, and a revolutionised political culture, the cleansing process will have to be intensified and followed through. Ideally speaking, this requires a transition process from the caretaker government to an elected government that will sincerely continue the work. It is clear from the slow process of reform in mainstream parties that their intention is to buy time and somehow pass the difficult time, so they can come back with a vengeance. This may mean that we have to redefine the concept of democracy within our own political/social context in order to avoid the wrath of imprisoned politicians in later years and the replay of politics of hatred and Bengali supremacy.
The technical definition of democracy may be enough to hold "comparatively fair elections" every five years, but it is not enough to create an environment for the production of a collective culture of peacefulness, inclusiveness, and economic sustainability. The individual autonomy of people cannot be guaranteed by the inherited concept of democracy. Democracy will have to be actualised as a flexible practice circumscribing gestures, manners, behaviours, within the intercultural landscape of spiritual folk culture, indigenous identities, justice-based political ambitions, and social life. Democracy will have to be part of the habituation process for a sense of revived cultural conditioning, not a coercive one-way flow of cultural artefacts from the top. The figures of cultural celebration remain trapped in the jingoistic, impulsive world of superficial spectacle. The seriousness of a political future for the purposes of upholding the values of the most disadvantaged is not taken into consideration within the monolithic conceptualisation of a reductive cultural synopsis. The call for a paradigm shift, i.e. the re-evaluation of culture(s), becomes necessary for a proper reading of political/social crises.
Whether the future will be formulated through the electoral process or a revived long-term caretaker government depends on the exhaustion of all the probable options in the intermediary. A substantial change in the system of governance may require a transformation of the system itself, therefore, dismantling orthodox and oppressive democratic practices. In the end, the transformative stage will have to lead to a fundamental questioning of the political intentionality of everyday people, and re-familiarising with ancient stories of peaceful consensus in order to invent a new historical narrative, where the bodies of young nameless activists are signified beyond political utility. The image of Nur Hussain then flickers not as an embodiment of political victory, but as a figure of spectacular dismemberment of the working class -- a case of muted voice, and blinded sight.
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^
|
