With the announcement of the 12th National Assembly election schedule on November 15, the agitation party BNP and like-minded parties announced to tighten the ongoing agitation. However, they had already said that the outline of the movement would change immediately after the announcement of the schedule. In this context, the political crisis over the electoral system has started to intensify.
Many fear that the ongoing movement against the government and the electoral system will lead to violence like in the past. People are burning, property is being destroyed, and panic is spreading. Movement and system change in the name of political rights are taking violent forms, which are not acceptable in democratic political culture. Such instability in the political arena after the announcement of the schedule cannot bode well for a democratic political system. It is creating obstacles in the way of organizing fair, free, and neutral elections. Although the time for the 12th National Assembly elections is approaching, the time for unconditional dialogue has not run out. But as the crisis of trust between the political parties deepens, the hope of dialogue is dim.
The political crisis in the country is not new. But the visible picture of the crisis of trust within the political parties suggests that the situation is now more than any time in the past. Because there are no proper institutions to govern the political parties in a proper structure, the crisis of trust has become so pronounced. There is a dearth of goodwill among political parties. Such cannot bring progress for the country and the nation.
A fair and inclusive political program beautifies democracy. But when the program of political demands increases public suffering and exacerbates political crises, it pushes the nation into deeper crisis. Public safety is the most important concern for the state. Political parties are responsible for democratic values and practices as part of a democratic world. Politicians should not forget this. It is important to pay more attention to these issues, especially in critical situations. Not partisan interests, but to resolve the crisis in the transitional period by holding an unconditional dialogue, we should move towards compromise. Before the election, it is the expectation of all peace lovers to settle the differences among the political parties and come to a compromise at the negotiating table to discuss the administrative aspects of fair, free, and impartial elections.
Due to the crisis of trust among political parties, foreigners have been commenting on internal affairs at various times. Undeniably, our geopolitical importance has increased. Here lies the complex calculation of the equation of interests of the superpowers. We see that the United States is already making various comments about the election environment. We have seen in the past, and we are still seeing in the run-up to the elections in Bangladesh, that the United States and the Western world always express unwanted concerns under the guise of democracy, freedom of speech, political stability, human rights, etc. Visits of different delegations at various times, applying pressure, imposing conditions, and above all, using the diplomatic missions stationed in the country to criticize the internal policies of the government and indirectly incite the anti-government political parties are not seen as auspicious signs. Such a move is not only distasteful but also falls short of any standard of diplomatic etiquette.
On November 16, US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said they will work to hold accountable those who threaten, intimidate, and attack union leaders, labor rights defenders, and labor organizations, including using things like sanctions, trade penalties, and visa restrictions-all the tools in their kit. This year, the country announced its visa policy. The nature of Bangladesh's political culture is difficult for Westerners to understand. Apart from that, we also differ with their infrastructure and management positions.
Today, the geopolitical equation has changed a lot. We see that China and India have clarified their positions on the internal affairs of Bangladesh. China and India are familiar with the political culture and structural conditions of the Asia-Pacific region. As a result, they can understand the relevance of time. We cannot say the same for the United States. Their national interests and managerial positions are also different. That is why it is not easy for the United States to understand the dynamics of Bangladesh's political culture.
As we see, the bilateral relationship between India and the US has taken on a different dimension. In a multipolar world, the intensity of geopolitical competition is becoming multifaceted. As a result, earlier, India could convince the US about the internal affairs of most of the states in the region. But recently, the United States itself has begun to take on its own role by monitoring China's activities. Basically, the United States is in a cautious position so that China's influence does not increase in the Asia-Pacific region. India is their main ally in the Asia-Pacific region to prevent China's hegemony. Bangladesh is also important, considering its geographical importance. So, they have been commenting on Dhaka's internal affairs lately.
India's views on Bangladesh contrast with those of the West for some valid reasons. India's sphere of influence in South Asia has suffered a lot in recent years. All the other countries except Bangladesh have pro-Chinese governments at the moment. India has a lot of bilateral interests in social, political, and economic fields with Bangladesh. Along with that, India's internal security, especially the political instability of the 7 states of North-East India, has been completely under India's control for the past decade and a half. Behind this is the special contribution of the Bangladesh government. At one time, Bangladesh was used by various Indian separatist groups for their selfish purposes, but the current government's strict action in this regard has brought a lot of relief to Indian politics.
Each geographical location has its own identity. Only the region and its neighboring states can comprehend the nature of that identity. In the age of globalization, while the task of obtaining and verifying information is easy, understanding the nature of the matter is not entirely easy. In this case, the diplomatic channel has to play a role. They need to understand how important it is to show respect for our internal affairs. At the same time, politicians should show responsibility. Because, in our experience, allowing foreigners to snoop will only make political divisions more pronounced. That is why it is necessary to get out of the circle of party interests and sit at the discussion table for the good of the nation.
We are going through difficult times in the geopolitical polarization equation. Policymakers in political parties should show foresight to resolve this crisis. A compromise should be reached to eliminate the crisis of confidence in the electoral system. The cooperation of political parties will strengthen the Election Commission. Bangladesh also has to change its diplomatic strategy. Strong diplomatic capabilities will help the country maintain a balanced diplomacy.
The writer is a Security and Strategic affairs analyst, Dhaka, Bangladesh
