Lessons from NCC verdict
Ivy, Shamim cannot be treated alike
Mahfuz Anam
It was good of the prime minister to call Selina Hayat Ivy, the newly
elected mayor of Narayanganj City Corporation (NCC), and congratulate
her. She even said "Baaper Beti" (Worthy daughter of worthy father),
acknowledging the magnificence of Ivy's victory and perhaps recalling
the fact that her father, also denied party nomination, ended up
defeating the party candidate in 1974. It was an appropriate gesture
that one expects from a leader of Sheikh Hasina's stature. We may even
compliment her on being able to swallow her pride and congratulating
somebody whose victory was obviously not something she desired ---
whatever may be said now. So far so good.
The problem arose when we saw that the PM had also invited Shamim
Osman, the contestant that Narayanganj voters had emphatically
rejected through what can be truly termed as a "ballot revolution".
Not only that, Shamim was invited at the same time, reportedly without
Ivy's knowledge, and was called to the PM's presence together, both
when she met them in a closed door meeting, and then in the session
where others were present.
How did Shamim Osman fit in there? What considerations could have made
the PM invite both together? How appropriate is it to treat the victor
of an election in the same manner as the loser? What sort of respect
is it for public opinion when both are given the same stature? Imagine
the feeling of voters from Narayanganj? While they have made a clear
choice, the PM does not seem to acknowledge it? How might they have
felt seeing the person they had collectively rejected standing on one
side of the PM with the one who has their love and respect on the
other? What does it say about the prime minister's own respect for
voters' judgment?
Then comes the bombshell. As reported, Sheikh Hasina asked the elected
mayor of NCC to "work together" with Shamim Osman in developing the
city. Work together? With whom? The person that the voters have
rejected? Is it the verdict of the people of Narayanganj that they
should work together? Did we, at The Daily Star, miss something?
However brave a face the party may now put on, people know that the
Awami League backed Shamim in the election, and the decision to back
Shamim was taken at the behest of the prime minister herself. In fact,
the leaders who could communicate with her pleaded with her to back
Ivy, because they all knew the public mood. Most local leaders from
Narayanganj also advised the same. Frantic messages were sent to her
warning of impending disaster if Shamim was given the party backing.
Party leaders even implored her to back neither as both were from the
AL and both refused to stand down when asked to do so by the party
chief. Ignoring almost all serious advice, and not taking into account
grassroots opinion, the AL chief made known her clear preference that
ultimately got translated into party support.
The reason we delve at some length into the process of selecting
Shamim over Ivy is because we now see an attempt to impose the same
person on the people of Narayanganj in running the affairs of NCC. How
can Ivy work together with Shamim when the public made a clear choice?
Had Ivy campaigned on a premise of "if elected I will work together
with Shamim", we seriously doubt if she would have got the mandate she
did. So why this deliberate negation of people's wishes?
We are deeply disturbed by the prime minister's remark. It is as if it
was a mere quarrel between two errant factional leaders, as if there
has not been a public verdict, as if people have not expressed their
choice, as if there were no differences between these two candidates.
We are forced to point out that just as Sheikh Hasina failed to gauge
the public mood prior to the election, she is now failing to
understand the message that has come out of the NCC election. People
want an end to the criminalisation of politics; they want an end to
corruption; they want freedom from intimidation and extortion; they
want transparent and accountable government, and most importantly,
they want clean and honest politicians to lead them. These are the
fundamental messages to have emanated from the NCC election.
There is a thinking among the higher echelons of our leading political
parties, especially the rulings parties of the day, that elections
cannot be won without criminal elements, that muscle power and money
are needed to bring in votes. However attractive moral values and
ethics may sound, in the practical world of vote getting gangsters
play a vital role. In the 2001 election Sheikh Hasina opted to give
party nominations to several candidates with criminal reputation, the
most prominent of whom was Joynal Hazari. Many AL nominations in Dhaka
were mostly based on "money-muscle" consideration. Not only were they
"certain" to return, but were also expected to "help" others to win.
Almost all of them lost heavily and brought the party down with them,
as people were furious to see such people nominated.
While in power the BNP's Hawa Bhavan operations were mainly based on
similar considerations, and we all know what disaster it brought to
the party.
People who know have commented that Sheikh Hasina has a soft spot for
Shamim Osman because of his contribution during her early days in
politics in the 1980s and because of his personal devotion to her
during the threatening times of Freedom Party operations.
While personal IOUs have some value, however they need to be judged in
the wider context of public and national good. Sheikh Hasina is too
big a leader and too experienced a prime minister to allow bigger
national issues to get clouded by such personal considerations.
We think her attempt to rehabilitate politicians with a dubious past
is extremely ill conceived. Our issue is not with any particular
politician but with the whole practice of patronisation of criminals
and criminally linked politicians by our big parties. Whatever small
advantage they may bring in one instance or another, overall they
bring disaster to the parties that patronise them.
The people of Narayanganj, through their votes, have given Sheikh
Hasina a magnificent opportunity to bring about a qualitative change
in her party politics. She now has an opening to bring in a new breed
of young leaders, who are "clean", committed and honest. She can seize
the moment and start anew the "politics of change" that was her
party's pledge, and believing which people gave her such an
overwhelming mandate.
Contrarily, Sheikh Hasina can choose to trivialise the lessons from
this election.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=209119
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/