The workings of a trinity Farhad Mazhar, a leading intellectual, tells New Age. Interviewed by Tanim Ahmed  Do you find the two-year emergency rule legitimate — politically and constitutionally? Constitutionally, it was illegitimate in every meaning of the term, although some jurists have strived to portray it as legitimate. That only brought out the loopholes and gaps in the text of the constitution. This exercise showed how these loopholes could be vulnerable to interpretation. Since this regime suspended the rights of citizens and people protested against human rights violations in their respective capacities, it demonstrates the positive aspect of our culture of resistance. Politically, however, from the advanced understanding of sovereignty and its relation to the state of emergency, we must take into account the existing debates. The state of emergency, or 'state of exception', as the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben points out, expanding upon Carl Schmitt's work on his famous definition of the sovereign that 'he who decides on the state of exception', is interesting. There is still no theory of the state of exception in public law, and jurists deal with it as a matter of fact than as a genuine juridical problem. Claiming that necessity has no law is simply admitting that state of emergency cannot have juridical form. Some of us vehemently opposed when powers of certain institutions of the government were significantly increased so as to supersede individual rights, but the way some jurists are dealing with this critical issue and some debating on talk-shows like 'performers' is simply shameful. To me, that is the true nature of the state. The state is by nature repressive and it is during this state of emergency that it reveals its true nature. It is quite interesting to see how the state behaves with and without the pretence of accommodation and space for dissent. This specific case of emergency regime was the result of the workings of a trinity, so to speak. There were the international donors, a parasitic middle class, also called civil society, and the military. Then there was a section of the media that actively endorsed the regime. These classes hardly represent the aspirations of the peasants, working classes or even the working middle classes. The emergency regime has dispelled certain misconceptions, the traditional concept of sovereignty being one. It has now become acceptable that one country gets involved in another country with the plea of 'humanitarian' intervention, or that of a 'failed state'. War against Islamic militants has become a major instrument of international and regional intervention. It is part of the international foreign policy to portray certain countries as failed economies and begin to govern them, claiming it threatens regional and international security. Whether or not that mode of governance is legitimate is of little relevance or concern. One cannot understand the events leading to January 11 outside the global paradigm of 'war on terror'. The question then is why govern at all. The answer is in the crisis of global economy that began showing wavering signs even in the early 1990s. But since the days of brute colonialism are over and since the bourgeois liberal democratic space that prevails in countries, prevents the self-expansion of capital, there is no option but to take over and govern in order to allow that expansion. It became even more apparent after the failure of multilateralism as trade talks under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation have faltered and appear to remain stuck. Going back to Agamben's work, the emergency regime exemplified the classic 'Homo Sacer' — an individual whose life is considered 'sacred' but may be murdered by anyone since the rights of that individual has been revoked, reducing it to 'bare life'. That is manifested through the so-called 'sovereignty' of the capital —proliferation of the multinational corporations and their operations putting human life at risk at every level: politically, economically, environmentally, ecologically, etc. Also, note the extra-judicial killing, which has become almost a norm. There is no political protection for life. Although the state cannot take away that life, it is quite at the mercy of others. In what ways have the actions of this regime affected the country —politically, economically and socially? Gradually, but surely, there was an evident emergence of local entrepreneurs prior to the emergency regime. Surely again, there were clear signs of primitive industrialisation and formation of industrial capital as it has happened previously in other countries. Here too that emergence was occurring through loot of plunder with the mediation of the state. Mind that we did not have colonies to plunder. But the state of emergency appears to have thwarted that process in the name of fighting corruption and instead creating a space for blatant plundering by the multinational corporations. That the process of allowing local entrepreneurship has been stalled is certainly a loss. There was a fairly steady and rising growth of the GDP, which stood at 6.7 per cent prior to the emergency. That has now come down to around five per cent. The capitalist transformation in a way has also been stalled. The basic engine of the economy, essentially the role of a processing plant, has been dented substantially. It appears that economy will be eventually become solely dependent on the remittance from expatriate workers, which is nothing better than modern day slave trade in the name of temporary movement of labour. The increased integration with the global economy and the free market has led to increased prices of essentials and there is no sign of letup on that front. This has led to higher poverty, which will in turn lead to increased crimes and deterioration of law and order. The political establishment might take to calling such incidents as acts of terrorism though. The other effect has been the complete denationalisation of the national army. They are now nothing better than international mercenaries. I had actually expected that there would be some resistance within the military establishment about doing the biddings of foreign quarters and in the interest of serving as mercenaries in foreign lands. But the emergency regime showed that the army now belongs to the higher bidder and one might say its behaviour is decided by the forces of the market in which it operates. It also becomes clear from the book that the chief of military staff has written recently. At least that is how the officers view themselves. How the soldiers and other ranks view themselves would be an interesting matter to take note of in future. On the political front, this emergency regime saw a negation of the political process in all spheres of public life, including a large section of the media. It makes the process of educating the masses, and mobilising them towards full-fledged democratisation of the state all the more difficult. This liberal space to accommodate differing views has all but vanished. In such circumstances there is a grave risk of producing 'djuice' generations feeding corporate frenzy. Besides, with article 70 of the constitution still in place, we are presented with nothing but another dictatorial regime. In fact, dictatorship of an individual was legitimised through the electoral process and the existing constitution. What approach should the parliament take to dealing with the decision and actions of the emergency regime?We should actually do away with any illusions we have about the existence of a parliament. It does not exist as we understand it politically as a functioning institution. The nature of the constitution is such that it makes parliament dangerous and anti-democratic. The parliament can also act as constituent assembly, with absolute majority, with the sovereign right to change the constitution including the section on fundamental rights, as I interpret it. Besides, the people never had the opportunity to contribute to the constituting process of the democratic state firstly by being deprived of the chance to elect a constituent assembly. The members of parliament the people had elected for a parliament of a different country declared themselves as the constituent assembly after our liberation in 1971 and a supposed constitution was thrust upon them thereafter, in which they did not have any participation. Nor did the people endorse it. Thus, the parliament governs itself by a set of laws that is void of legitimacy in the first place. What it does or does not do has little significance, as far as the people in general are concerned. For that to change, we must first elect a constituent assembly that will formulate the constitution and only then can we have a genuine parliament. It is simply that the laws that govern us are not legal in themselves. The very fact that the serving army chief can violate the laws and then go on to write a book, while still in service, only points to the fact that there is no government, per se. What is your opinion about the ratification of the emergency regime, which you believe is constitutionally illegitimate, in the parliament? This is merely a repetition of what has been done in case of similar regimes in the past. When state power was taken at gunpoint, the parliament ratified the regime with retrospective effect. This in itself demonstrates that Bangladesh, as a state, does not exist. I mean to say we have politically failed to constitute ourselves with a constitution that cannot be overthrown at gunpoint and the next parliament endorses the act as constitutionally legitimate. We are not a political community yet. We have seen similar measures for the regimes headed by generals HM Ershad and Ziaur Rahman. This clearly shows that the government is essentially controlled by military might, both in terms of taking over power at fancy and subsequently having it ratified. It also points out that the parliament is in fact functioning under the military machinery. If the laws of the land truly prevailed, then the first thing that the parliament would have done would be to put the perpetrators of emergency regime under trial. What do you think were the forces/factors/events that led to the January 11, 2007 intervention? What a section of the people had alleged was only proven in the book written by Moeen U Ahmed, the chief of military staff. It dispels any doubt anyone might have had regarding the role of the UN in the military intervention of that day. That is one. Then there is the neoliberal paradigm. This paradigm dictates that the state has no role to play in ensuring the rights of the citizens. Food, shelter, clothing, education, health and employment besides the civic amenities that have come to be accepted as basic needs, according to the neoliberal philosophy, must be provided through market-based solutions. The only role left for the state is to provide security. When the state is left with no other responsibilities but provide security for the people, it becomes nothing more than a security apparatus and the tools of such an apparatus — law enforcement agencies — are necessarily repressive. Then again, the nature of multinational corporations has become such that they are no longer prepared to share their profits of loot and plunder with the local entrepreneur classes. It is because the rate of return or profits from their investment, however predatory, has been diminishing over the world. Thus, in order to ensure they continue to enjoy similar margins, it is necessary to install a regime that fights 'corruption' and rids the system of the local entrepreneurs clearing the field for corporations to plunder. The second context in the broad terms is the war on terror and its shift from Iraq to Afghanistan. The underpinning is that once terrorist militant forces are vanquished from Afghanistan, they will reappear in countries like Bangladesh. That underpinning is further strengthened by the fact that Bangladesh, being a nation of about 150 million people with over 60 million living in poverty, makes fertile ground for recruitment of a terrorist army. Then of course there are the thousands of madrassahs fomenting anti-colonial and anti-imperialist mindset among millions of pupils. This phobia of the western elite has severe consequences for Bangladesh. Those are the broad contexts. As for the specific event, there was certainly the parasitic middle class desiring more power.. The nexus of this middle class, a large section of the media, the international donor community and the military had decided to install a more supposedly secular regime even when the events of January 11 were taking place. That had been a foregone conclusion apparently to deter the Islamist terrorism and militancy. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the European Union played a key role forcing the events that took place and in violation of the Geneva Convention. In this regard, however, India proved to be more prudent and actually rode on the other players. But in the end, I would say, India won out. They had bet on the right horse and it came out the winner. How can the recurrence of such undemocratic interventions into the political process be deterred — politically and legally? Legally, there is very little one can do. I doubt that we can do much with the law in this regard, especially when the nature of law making is anti-democratic. Moreover, the enactment of anti-terrorism and anti-corruption laws only makes way for increased powers of the government machinery. But that is not to say that there is no need for legal activism. We must stand to defend what little liberal space even this legal regime offers the citizens. The political process, on the other hand, does not imply being limited between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League. It must be an intellectual process through which people may be educated. Through increased awareness, there will be public mobilisation towards to a more democratic polity and only then can the process of democratisation, which is still left incomplete, be initiated. I believe it is the duty and responsibility of us, the citizens. Neither Hasina, nor Khaleda will do it for us for they do not aspire for such a polity and in fact thrive in the perpetuation of the undemocratic dispensation of the state. So in order to deter such intervention, we should defend whatever space we can for the collective democratic aspirations from the ruling establishment and anti-democratic forces. We, as citizens and political beings, must learn to collaborate with each other despite our differences and learn to reach out for creative dialogue. They should learn to nurture the potential intellect of individuals that would help exploit the minor rift among the more influential players in the global polity. So, my practice will be to exploit all spaces available to defend the interest of the majority of the people. It is not just necessary to deter future interventions that we have seen but imperative for the survival of Bangladesh as a nation state. It has been seen that certain security agencies have tried their hand at influencing and shaping the political landscape. What is your opinion about the role they play and how can it be prevented? As I understand, every citizen has a role in the security of a state, be it an artist, a soldier, a journalist or an activist. Each has a certain role here.. But in all practical purposes I do not perceive any difference between the emergency regime, run by the military with a civilian façade and the elected regimes. They are fascist, communal and dictatorial to varying degrees maybe. But none of them is any less repressive. From the perspective of political philosophy it was merely the change of a façade of the same repressive machine. Sure, the emergency regime violated human rights and tortured politicians. As a human rights advocate, I too have protested against such deeds. But you see the bone of contention in this case is only that a certain party they had employed as the bouncer — darwan — began acting like the master. This can only be prevented by thoroughly politicising the military from a non-partisan perspective. The security agencies must be built in such manner that they are geared to protect and preserve the constitution. That is the only way to prevent these agencies playing the kind of role they did. |
__._,_.___