How could BNP come to this stage?

(THE DAILY STAR, March 9, 2007)

Commentary

How could BNP come to this stage?

Mahfuz Anam

Nobody represents the rot that ate away into the very vitals of BNP
more dramatically than Tarique Rahman. President Ziaur Rahman for all
his constructive (Saarc) and shameful (Indemnity Act) actions was
universally respected for his financial honesty. Tarique, as his elder
son, on the contrary, appeared hell bent on destroying that core
image. Leave alone being concerned, he seemed to bask in his
reputation of corruption and never for a moment gave the slightest
impression that he was either bothered by it or would ever do anything
against it. He considered himself as the product of destiny and took
the leadership of BNP to be his proprietorial right.


It was his nonchalance about the rule of law that perhaps represented
his most fearful side. Rules just did not matter, only his personal
interest did. In a vulgar display of his arrogance he used to publicly
denigrate older leadership of his own party. Not that any of them
deserved any better (recall the photographs of senior party leaders,
including Saifur Rahman, Khandakar Mosharraf and others, desperately
trying to squeeze themselves into photo frames with Tarique at Zia's
mazar or some similar occasion) yet his attitude towards them was
geared to remind all every minute of the day as to who was the boss.


Often he would tease the elders for not really understanding the
sentiments of the young. According to him, all that the younger
generation wanted was wealth and power. Totally devoid of any
principles or ideals, he would mock those of us who would talk about
our Liberation War as mere looking into the past. On one occasion, at
Prothom Alo's annual reception, he told me, "Having failed to develop
the country your generation only talks about the Liberation War. Can
history give us jobs for the young?" He would tease and say most young
people today do not care about the past, about "your struggles, about
Bhasha Andolon or Mukti Juddho". Today "we want to look at the future
and not the past." When I protested saying where was the contradiction
between being proud of our past, especially our struggles for freedom,
and building the country for the future, he said, "Give power to the
younger generation and we will show you how to build Bangladesh. Your
generation has failed." It was quite curious how distant he was to the
greatest achievement of our nation, our Liberation War, in which his
father was a major actor.


Though Tarique Rahman lies at the centre of BNP's disgrace, yet it
would be wrong to hold him solely responsible for it. Obviously his
mother and party chief Khaleda Zia must share a large part of the
blame. She did nothing to prevent Tarique's evil influence from
becoming all pervasive. On the contrary, she isolated the leaders who
tried to warn her as to what was going on. In fact, the message become
more and more clear that Tarique was the heir apparent and those who
wanted a future in the BNP should fall in line with Tarique. The only
person Khaleda Zia protected against her son's predominance was
Mosaddak Ali Falu. In fact, ousting Falu from his privileged position
of political secretary to the former PM was the only battle Tarique
lost. As for the rest they were all left to Tarique's pleasures and we
saw proof of that almost daily as one senior leader after another
would desperately line up at Hawa Bhaban to seek the crown prince's
grace.


Today as layer after layer of corruption is being peeled off
destroying the party's residual credibility (residual because by the
time her regime ended Khaleda Zia greatly compromised the party's
image by her tolerance of unbridled corruption), the former Prime
Minister must take her due responsibility for having literally
destroyed the party that propelled her to the highest elected office
twice. What an irony, instead of being humbled by the honour, respect
and dignity that the poor and underprivileged people of this country
so generously gave to her, Khaleda Zia became arrogant, high-strung,
imperious, proud and pompous. Her attitude was that of an uncrowned
queen who had deigned to rule us for which we must be only grateful
and not demand the implementation of what she promised in elections.


In our view there are two specific points in her second term from when
the rot can be said to have become uncontrollable. First was the
expansion of number of ministers (including state and deputy) from
35-40 to nearly 60 during the first days of government formation in
the second term. This single decision created the ground for crippling
the government from functioning with any semblance of discipline,
becoming an open field for illegal or extra legal decisions that would
lead to ever expanding corruption. As it became clear that while all
cabinet ministers were nominees of the party leadership, nearly all
the state and deputy ministers were nominees of Tarique Rahman. Thus
began his disruptive influence on the functioning of government, which
soon led to the dismantling of all checks and balances within the
administration. The multilayered cabinet with dual loyalty was a
recipe for disaster and that is precisely what happened--utter
disaster. Governance failed and politicisation of every aspect of the
administration became the order of the day.


The second incident that speeded the rot was the dismissal of Prof
Badruddoza from the position of the President. The country still does
not know why it happened. Why was the founder secretary general of BNP
suddenly found unacceptable even in as decorative a post as that of
the President. What Dr B Chowdhury's removal showed was that nobody
could expect to survive in the government or in the party without the
pleasure of Khaleda Zia and her son. If a lifelong BNP man, the
founding secretary general, the man who built the party from scratch
along with Ziaur Rahman could be removed without the slightest of
provocation then how could any lower level leader survive? Even a
suspicion of disloyalty would cost anybody's political career. This
one act destroyed whatever little party democracy there was, depriving
Khaleda Zia of any chance of getting any independent information or
advice.


The two above acts--one destroying the government and the other
destroying the party-- committed at the beginning of Khaleda Zia's
second term sowed the seeds of corruption, abuse of power,
politicisation of every branch of the administration, especially law
enforcement agencies and the bureaucracy.
Leaders like Saifur Rahman, Khandaker Mosharraf, Mannan Bhuiyan,
Moudud Ahmed, and others of the same seniority bear a lot of
responsibility for the present condition of BNP. They allowed the rot
to continue without any protest. They too were eager to either please
the crown prince or to stay out of his wrath without taking any
position that would save the party. They miserably failed to take any
stand when the cabinet was infiltrated by Tarique or when Badruddoza
was dismissed in such humiliating circumstances. Thus they were
partners in the demise of BNP when the party transformed itself from a
political party to a family property.


Let us all learn from what has happened to BNP. We cannot expect
democratic governance from political parties that do not practise
inner party democracy. In the future let us not accept any political
party that does not permit democracy to flourish within its fold. This
is a lesson that Awami League can only ignore at its own peril.

(Mahfuz Anam is the Editor of the Daily Star)

(THE DAILY STAR, March 9, 2007)

.