The idea of a National Unity Government-V

Sadeq Khan

We have discussed the nation's threat perception as well as opportunity calculation that severally weigh heavy in favour of the idea of a national unity government for a limited span of time (two or three consecutive parliamentary tenures). That idea does not abandon party political advocacy and adversarial activism of the multiparty system. It calls for a common platform and policy agenda amongst all political parties and interest groups, other than extremist or exchesivist ideologues, to agree on a formula to share power and shelve for the time being ideological or meritocratic contests for power, until there is adequate capacity-building of state institutions to withstand destabilising forces within and without the country in the transitional matrix of the twenty-first century world order. In other words, it is a call to find a formula to institutionalise a contemporary version of the Bangladesh National Front of the liberation war model, to deter alien intrusions, to maintain alert governance, and to ensure equal opportunities for all to contribute to the wealth of the nation.
   Indeed, as the Western leaders are now saying that strengthening of liberal democracy in developing countries is the best way to combat terrorism (during the Cold War and even today, former colonial powers did and do prefer to deal with autocracies and monarchies at the expense of democratic movements, for the "security" of their spheres of influence and geostrategic interests), our national experience is that illiberal democracy and malpractices of multiparty contests for power nurture various forms of terrorism in the fringes as well as in the main body politic. Western panacea has been "free and fair polls" certified by international observers and foreign-funded NGO motivators. In Bangladesh and elsewhere, such certificates and alien or surrogate advocacy did not help much.
   Nor did they do much good in countries under foreign military protection. In Afghanistan or in Iraq, representative governments are failing to command popular allegiance even by formulation of consensus leadership. In contrast, consensus governments, with regional support are working in Lebanon and in Kenya. Indeed more and more Third World countries are finding national unity governments to be a temporal state necessity as a stepping stone to stable democracy.
   I quote an astute political commentator Mahbub Kamal on the subject (vide The Daily Star, June 20): "Recently, national consensus or national governments have been formed in Nepal and Pakistan during peacetime to oversee the country's transition to democracy. Both countries have formed broad coalitions involving almost all political parties represented in parliament to oversee the transition.
   In both cases, the largest parties had a choice of forming weak coalitions with smaller parties but it was thought wiser to go for a broader coalition implying the greatest possible political support for the political transformation. Although it is too early to say whether the experiment in these countries will succeed, but the fact remains that it has been appreciated by all, both locally and internationally.
   The repeated disruption of the democratic process in Bangladesh also calls for some kind of cooperation between the principal actors. The informal networks that work so well while in the opposition, need to be formalised and given a place in the power structure.
   Most importantly, sitting on the same side of the table would be a major role reversal that may help the disparate parties think along similar lines. So far, they have always been sitting across the table, making the relationship adversarial.
   Although a certain amount of adversity is necessary and desirable in a democracy, but the critical tension level between cooperation and competition has been broken down much too often in favour of the latter in Bangladesh. It is time to reverse the pendulum a little to the other side to make the system functional.
   Thus the idea of a national unity government by temporary modification of liberal democratic order is taking root as a "political perception" to stabilise democracy, apart from the "threat perception" to secure the state and the "opportunity calculation" to empower the state geopolitically and socio-economically. The historical context of this "political perception" was also succinctly narrated by Mahbub Kamal, whom I quote:
   "Very soon after independence, most opposition political parties including the NAP (Bhashani) demanded a national government to rebuild the country. The newly formed JSD went a step further and wanted a "revolutionary" government. The ruling Awami League felt that such a deviation would undermine their moral right and went for a quick election in 1973. This, however, did not resolve the myriad problems that had emerged through the Liberation War.
   The issue of a national government came up again after the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1991. But this time, too, the predominant party, BNP refused to accommodate others, although it fell short of an absolute majority and had to depend on Jamaat-e-Islami to gain a majority to form a government. However, BNP ignored its lack of an absolute majority in parliament and paid the price when the other political parties banded together against it. In the general elections of 2001, BNP tried to remedy its mistakes of the past by forming an alliance of four parties.
   The Awami League when it formed a government in 1996 called for a government of national consensus but this was rejected by the main opposition BNP. Nevertheless, the BNP agreed to have national consensus on important national issues. Had AL accepted the offer it may have been a beginning, but then earlier experience was not so good either.
   In the early 1990s the BNP government had initiated several national dialogues on major national issues like student politics, but it did not have any output. Part of the problem was that the representatives at the roundtables did not include the two major decision makers of the party.
   Political parties have a long tradition of banding together when in the opposition, but they tend to split up over the spoils, once in power. In the early 1960s the Combined Opposition Parties (COP) was a significant force that launched a vigorous campaign to challenge Ayub Khan and promote Ms. Fatima Jinnah as the presidential candidate. Although, Ms. Jinnah did not win the polls, as it was widely believed to be rigged, the campaign left an indelible imprint on the psyche of the nation. In 1968, the political parties, once again formed DAC, the Democratic Action Committee, to oust Ayub and restore democracy. The DAC was successful in attaining its objectives. But after the ouster of Ayub it also fell apart.
   In post-liberation Bangladesh there were some coalitions, too. In 1975 when the Awami League formed the one-party state, it absorbed NAP (Muzaffar) and the CPB. Later when Zia wanted a political base, he formed a united front of political parties ranging from the left to right. It included the Muslim League and the NAP(B). Later the "nationalist front" as it was called became the Bangladesh Nationalist Party or BNP for short.
   After the restoration of parliamentary democracy in the 1990s, all governments were either coalitions or quasi-coalitions. Gradually, the country was moving towards greater and bigger coalitions. The fact was dawning on the party leaderships that, however large their following, they alone were not in a position to rule the country peacefully.
   By the winter of 2007 when general elections were scheduled to be held, it was becoming increasingly clear that even grand coalitions were no solution to the perennial problems of Bangladesh politics. The nation needed some kind of power sharing arrangement among the major players. It was a refusal to accept the ground realities that forced a suspension of the scheduled polls.
   An unprincipled alliance is the last thing one wants to see, as it will only deprive people of their choices. But a principled coalition of forces seems to be the only way out of the intensely competitive and increasingly confrontational politics of Bangladesh. The major stakeholders must be willing to share and give what is due to their adversaries, otherwise, there will be no peace in Bangladesh."
   This political perception of state necessity was the motive force behind the FBCCI call for a national reconciliation formula in 2000 and 2004. That perception was further sharpened after the barbaric events of lynching on the streets in the name of political agitation on October 28, 2006, followed by continuing violence and a state of internal siege frustrating the schedule of general election.
   The long sequence of destructive political actions and reactions that led to the proclamation of the present state of emergency has also been an eye-opener for a number of well-meaning politicians across the board of partisan divide. The most vocal and candid advocate of a national unity government amongst established political figures has been Dr. Kamal Hossain. Although Dr. Kamal Hossain is regarded by many as a "soft" politician vulnerable to alien dictates and stronger personalities in national politics, in the wake of the state of emergency he has been consistently upholding the case for a government of national unity, ignoring external pressures and internal forces of polarisation. His latest speech, delivered in Rajshahi on June 20, highlights the idea of "national unity" as a democratic necessity:
   "Unity is the answer to all questions. If we want democracy, student politics without terrorism, an accountable government, rule of law and equal rights for all, unity among citizens is a must".
   "People of the country have never tolerated anarchy. They sacrificed their lives for a honourable life. Although we drove out colonial rulers long ago, we are yet to be freed from disparity.
   "In history no party could always remain at top. Muslim League was a major political party but it suffered huge defeat in the elections in 1954.
   "We have to be united against those evil forces that are engaging our children in crime and violence in educational institutions. It is our responsibility to resist them."
   Dr. Kamal did not speak about foreign pressures, but he must be keenly aware of such foreign pressures as are more disruptive to the process of our democratic evolution than helpful, however well-intentioned. But he amply made the case for the internal dimension of "evil" political pressures that necessitate a national unity formula.
   There remains yet another compulsion for our polity to seek a temporal formula for a national unity government modifying multiparty democratic practice prevalent in this country. That is a compulsion arising out of geo-physical inadequacy, of lebensraum or living space strategy that we must adopt as a national pursuit for the survival of the nation-state.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

IT IS NOW OFFICIAL
US invasion of Iraq was for oil!

Nasrine R. Karim

In 1972, the West lost control of the power they exercised before Iraq nationalised its oil industry and ejected the US and British oil giants. This move had ushered in a wave of nationalisations throughout the oil-producing countries. The Iraq Petroleum Company was dominated by the US and British companies, which controlled three-quarters of the country's oil production.
   Recently, the New York Times reported that four major US, British and French oil companies will have access to the petroleum reserves of Iraq for the first time in 36 years and based on no-bid contracts!.
   At the very beginning of the invasion, US troops seized control of the oilfields and secured the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, and left all other governmental and cultural institution to the mercy of the looters. To be recalled: the heinous looting of the Baghdad Museum by savvy thieves who even had keys to vaults and stores housing centuries of history of Mesopotamia and indeed of civilization itself!
   According to the New York Times: "While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies' previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world's largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back." Only ironically, none of the companies had to bid for the latest contracts. The deals are being handed over without any competition to Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total and British Petroleum!
   The Times acknowledged that "The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India." It reported: "The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations."
   The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News: "The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraqi oil contracts. It's a private sector matter." However Rice, a former director of Chevron, which is participating in one of the contracts in a consortium with Total, acknowledged that with the new deals "it's starting to get interesting in Iraq."
   No-bid deals in the oil sector are not only "unusual," under conditions in which oil demand is at an all-time high! Crude is selling circa $137 a barrel and energy-producing countries around the world such as, Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Bolivia and others are sensibly tightening national grip over their reserves. Iraq is being made to give it away?
   Foothold for US oil majors
   Strong nationalist opposition to foreign exploitation of the country's reserves is one of the major reasons for not going for international bidding. The deals have been cleverly structured as "service agreements" in order to circumvent restrictions. One oil expert commented this would the "foothold" for the four major Western companies.
   Interestingly, Russia's Lukoil, which had been training Iraqi oil engineers without remuneration, is to be thrown out of an oilfield where it held a previously signed contract, just to make way for Chevron and Total!
   The drive by the US government and the oil monopolies to regain their control over Iraq's oil wealth began well before the Bush administration launched its unprovoked war in March 2003. After Iraq's infrastructure was shattered in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the Clinton administration campaigned for United Nations sanctions that choked off essential food and medical supplies and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of additional lives.
   The Bush Administration's false claims about "weapons of mass destruction" and the invention of ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda seems to confirm now that it was just a pretext for a war aimed at re-establishing semi-colonial control over Iraq and its oil wealth.
   Choice in Iraq
   The 2008 presidential election contest has been presented by the media and the two presidential candidates-Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain-as a choice between a US withdrawal from Iraq or continuing the war until victory. Yet, the ongoing negotiations over a "Status of Force Agreement," or SOFA, a document for long-term presence of US occupation troops in the country has pointed to an underlying agreement on Washington's future course in Iraq.
   Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in Washington for the talks on the SOFA, apparently held discussions this week with both McCain and Obama on future US policy in the country.
   The Washington Post quoted Zebari saying that Obama had assured him that a Democratic administration would "not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or actions." According to the Post, Zebari concluded that "there was 'not too much difference' between Obama's position and that of the presumptive Republican nominee..."
   For the over one million Iraqis killed and the millions more turned into refugees or made homeless in their own land, an overriding justification for their suffering has now been laid bare
   Change? I don't know if he can!

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE