Moving past the Politics of "Family Baggage"
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
September 24, 2001[This article was written and sent to one of the Bangladeshi newspapers a few days before Election 2001. Apparently, the paper found it "too hot for the common palate" to publish it. I was notified about the decision of the editorial board a week after the Election of October 1, 2001.]
The so-called democracy of our subcontinent is often demarcated by family dynasties: not just any family, but a few select ones. More so, if any political assassination should have preceded such perch.
From Nehru family to Bhutto to Mujib family, certain daughters have played critical role in their respective political arena. In other cases, the wife of an assassinated leader has also scaled to political stardom, as in the case of Khaleda Zia, the widow of the late Ziaur Rahman.
Political parties in our countries tend to promote cult-oriented leadership in which an individual looms larger than life on the canvas of politics. When such an individual gets assassinated, the political parties deem it indispensable to hoist up a sympathy-inducing personality to poise above the pell-mell as the precious replacement. Whether such a person is of leadership prowess based on his experience and other qualifications is a criterion seldom considered.
While some such leadership inducted in by sympathy have served their countries well and affirmed their statesmanship, as in the case of Indira Gandhi, others in similar roles have showcased their lack of statesmanship.
In this context the case of Bangladesh offers an interesting twist. While participation of such close relatives of assassinated leaders in politics is not uncommon, nowhere else in the subcontinent the two dominant political forces are led by two women, where both of them are close relatives of assassinated leaders: Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of late Sheikh Mujib, leading Awami League, and Khaleda Zia, the widow of late Ziaur Rahman, leading BNP.
Neither of these two ladies have any requisite qualification to lead any nation. Instead both have little education, no prior experience and no demonstrated ability to lead their respective political party, let alone being leader of a nation. The only qualification for either of them is that they are immediate relatives of their late assassinated father or husband. They are also not of the type that has proven their ability after being in the challenging role of leadership. It can't be argued that it is the misfortune of us as a nation, because we have not insisted as a nation on seeking alternative leadership that did not appear laden with such family baggage.
Having one such inept leader in the political arena would be bad enough, but our misfortune is worsened by a double whammy - not one but two inept, bickering ladies, whose primary qualification is that they are the sympathy-successors of their respective assassinated relatives. Worse is the fact that not only that they lack qualification and are inept, but also their interpersonal dynamics in the context of national politics is a prodigious nuisance. The politics of the country has unfolded in a way that their political rivalry has degenerated into bitter personal rivalry.
Unlike any true statesmen’s, their language and manner reflect little else but ineptitude and puerility. Moreover, their respective parties are organizationally too weak to rise past these ladies with special family ties. Such ladies may carry some baggage, but they also carry precious political capital, which the political parties can't even dream of treating as dispensable.
As a nation, we need to educate ourselves about the importance of qualification and quality of leadership, rather than their heredity, which has been more often a negative element in our contemporary context than positive. Political parties need to mature as institutions and wean themselves from such sympathy-rousing, mommy-like political figures. There is a related electoral issue that also needs to be simultaneously addressed.
There is already a rising recognition that contesting from multiple constituencies by the elites of the political parties is unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional, and thus insalubrious for our nation. We have seen some legal improvements in this regard, limiting such multiplicity of constituency from which one can contest---from unlimited to five to three. Not only that, this allows additional leeway to some privileged few, and it also might be contributing toward the perpetuation of the hereditary tradition of party leadership. By amending the law to mandate only one constituency per candidate, the chances of such privileged few, who play significant corrupting roles in our political system, would be reduced. The way I see it, if such leaders can't get elected from one constituency that they consider most favorable, they shouldn't be in the parliament, let alone be the prime minister.
Part of our maturing as a democracy must be ushered in by delinking parties from excessive hereditary or "family" baggage of the party leadership. The country does not need prime ministers who are more interested in upholding their fathers' or husbands' legacy, then actually doing anything substantive for the nation, except prattling lip service to those claimed legacies. Those leaders who go after only the killers of their own family members but have no interest in holding accountable killers of others' family and relatives, when many of the killers are from their own parties, shouldn't be leading our nation. Unfortunately, such tendencies are not unique to just a particular party; rather, it is endemic.
Such heredity-oriented mentality, one of the symptoms of dysfunctional politics, is holding the country hostage, as the politics based on the legacy of the dead is reflected in the personal vendetta of the two ladies. But among other things that need to happen, these two ladies must be retired before the national politics can realistically propel beyond their personal vendetta and political parties exploiting such sympathy-inducing profile. Clearly, because of such leadership, the country is still in the grip of the past, mired in squabble in the name or legacy of their murdered relatives.
Neither choice in the election, AL or BNP, is good. The other choices are not even noteworthy. I will refrain from discussing the party choice. But I strongly feel that regardless of the direction our voters cast their vote, I hope that they would not vote for either of the two ladies, and thus help pave the way to their retirement. In addition, they might rescue the parties from such family baggage and offer the nation some breathing room to look to the future, as the political parties would then become responsible for delivering results, rather than merely hiding behind such mommy figures.
Whichever way we vote, let's help these two ladies retire. Any chance of this materializing is perhaps slim. Yet, until the electorates recognize the power of their votes and learn how to avail of it for their own interest, rather than for the sake of their party, group, or sympathy-symbols, the political perils in our society are our deserved demerits. Before we blame these inept and corrupt leaders, let us recognize that we have elected them with our votes. Therefore, let us vote vigilantly for a viable and vigorous future.
HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi
Nazrul Islam?
Genocide
1971 Page?
Hadith
Humor Page?