Khawaza Main Uddin

Arguably, a thankless job in our society is the job of a matchmaker. A ghatak, as they are known in Bengali, happens to be a person who is not paid but criticised unjustly by both the families of the bride and the groom even when an arranged marriage results in a certain degree of satisfaction. The role of the civil society is similar to that of a typical Bangladeshi matchmaker.Some folks love to slam members of the civil society, who are respected and privileged men and women. It’s possible that jealousy instigates adverse criticism and sometimes the role models’ gaffes inspire many to join the army of detractors.

A section of high-flying people feel and voice unabashedly that they themselves are the sole representatives of the conscience of the community, reminding us of the hubris-driven line uttered by Louis XVI of France: L’État, c’estmoi (I am the state)!

For years and decades, the attitude of the establishment towards a vibrant media and sharp opinions has remained unchanged – inimical and hostile. And why would a government which does not represent the entire nation be so tolerant to the gentlemen who speak for democratic governance?

Selfless individuals, however, think otherwise. Only 31 intellectuals issued a statement demanding dissolution of parliament constituted through controversial elections boycotted by the Khaleda Zia-led BNP in 1986.

General Ershad-sponsored Jatiya Party captured the treasury bench and Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League was the automatic choice for fitting the opposition bench. Evoking the entente between the two 27 years ago, they have made a historic castling in the power game minus the BNP.

That defiant statement, which also contained the demand for holding free and fair elections under a caretaker government, set the course for politics in Bangladesh – a popular student demonstration that culminated in the mass upsurge of 1990, resulting in the fall of Ershad, who usurped the Presidency from the BNP’s Justice Abdus Sattar in 1982. This was followed by the most peaceful ballot in our history in 1991.

Those intellectuals, if we may consider them as vanguards, still kept pressure on the BNP, the party that won the majority of votes in the 1991 parliamentary polls, to introduce the parliamentary form of government through the 12th amendment of the constitution.

One of the celebrated journalists of his time, the late Foyez Ahmed, maintained liaison among the political actors in the same manner he and some others did during the anti-autocracy movement in the 1980s. We also saw him active in mediating a dialogue on the caretaker government in 1995.

The rise of the civil society should have been firmer during the reign of elected governments; however, a large number of civil society icons managed to brazenly polarise themselves into two camps. Its third stream, outside the alignment of either the AL or the BNP, has become a depleted force over the years.

Elites and various professionals have, in the past two decades, issued many joint statements, mostly biased towards one camp or the other. Statements by others too were of no significant impact as the practice has lost potency.

Matchmakers like Pakhi bhai have found their own ways to survive and thrive, sacrificing social volunteerism and opting instead for commercial services. Alas, civil society actors cannot open shop with a lucrative turnout every month.

Its status is defined in the treatment from successive regimes when they doled out halua-ruti (benefits), politicising public institutions. Rival political camps made a trade-off while choosing non-party individuals for polls-time governments, castigating the office-bearers after electoral defeat every now and then – in 1991, 1996, 2001, and then 2008.

A handful of aristocrats and adventurists, disillusioned with political leadership, advocated changes, evidently supporting attempts by the army-led interim government that took office on January 11, 2007.

This cost the civil society its credibility. As fallout, the next Sheikh Hasina-led government went after Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus and others with visceral rage. Many have shut the doors of conscientious mind to not protest against various misdeeds around us.

The January 5 elections, manipulated from the beginning to the end, have offered a tricky choice between maintaining silence and raising their voices for the civil society leaders. They came up with a last-minute statement, making a fervent appeal to postpone the one-sided polls. However, once the election was over, they faced pressure from the ruling camp, blighted by the legitimacy question but blissfully nonchalant.

While the vocal ones are subjected to reprimand and harassment, they themselves seem to be overwhelmed by the situation. The pro-BNP part of the civil society fears of the repercussions and the AL’s portion loses its moral position.

The pressure group outside the political parties missed the opportunity to impel the main contenders for power to come to a consensus on the modality of holding acceptable elections well before the announcement of the polls-schedule in 2013.

They are now in a dilemma on how to proceed and what to do. Unlike the pro-democracy intellectuals in the 1980s, a segment of today’s intelligentsia, which boasts of forming opinion or negotiating with power blocs, is more concerned about the eventual beneficiary of its activism: Would it go against AL, or in favour of the BNP?