Editorial Desk :When outsiders talk about our political crisis the obvious mistake they make is not knowing that in our politics dialogue has no place. Still some of us within and outside go on asking the two lady leaders to “embark on a genuine dialogue” for resolving the crisis.This time so asked by the US based daily International New York Times.The New York Times on Friday wrote an editorial to draw the attention of our leaders as well as the world community about the urgency of the need of saving Bangladesh from the brink of chaos. We must say that to describe the situation in Bangladesh as merely on the brink of chaos is to put it too mildly.The horrid nature of the situation is that our people are enduring suffering, blood-letting and destruction. It is not that we do not know the kind of political crisis for democracy we have been going through since we got separated from Pakistan in 1971 for its autocratic occupational rule with the help of India. This is most surprising and confusing.But it is now becoming clear that we gained Bangladesh but lost the democratic aspirations of our people for which the liberation war was launched. The political leaders returned from India became more interested in revolutionary politics of one party rule. The democratic constitution which was introduced in the immediate excitement of separation from Pakistan were totally destroyed in less than three years in favour of a revolutionary one party government.One party system was changed in tragic circumstances. But the practise of democracy remained illusory. Dynastic type rule emerged under the two ladies. To talk about change of leadership was considered as an unpatriotic act not to be tolerated. We were waiting helplessly when one party system was getting reorganised by politicising every walk of public life.This is the reality of our politics and political leaders in which we have to understand the problem of our crisis. The undemocratic politics of the two party has now reverted to the same one party revolutionary politics in which dialogue and free election cannot have any space.The argument that election is not a matter for the government’s willingness to sit with Begum Khaleda Zia or anybody else, it is a national matter of recognizing the people’s sovereignty for securing democratic legitimacy of the government does not carry any weight. The government promised fresh and inclusive election and the government has to hold the election for its own democratic legitimacy. Whether the people want change or not — let the people decide.The New York Times is very much to the point when it described our democracy as “Bangladesh’s most troubled democracy”.So it has to be understood that solution to our crisis cannot be found in asking either side to ‘a cease-fire’. Because violence will not be stopped unless democracy can be saved. The root cause of the crisis is not what BNP will do with Jamaat-e-Islami. If BNP-Jamaat alliance is bad than it should be good for the government to hold the election to win it safely.The problem is not terrorism — it is much deeper and dangerous for democracy. We expected India to be helpful for making democracy work for its help in the liberation war was for democracy. But we do not see any sure sign of that.Giving police all the freedom to abuse its power will only have more catastrophic backlash. Instead of practising democracy and showing tolerance to the opposition, the government is wrongly depending on excessive use of police power.Denying the people free election on the subjective allegation that Jamaat is unacceptable to the government as a terrorist party cannot be acceptable as reasonable. The supporters of the government are violently also against having any dialogue with BNP. It is for anyone to see where that leaves our people.It is a shame to admit that our government has taken such a position that no dialogue with the government is possible by others who are not even politically ambitious. Those who tried to take any initiative they had faced ridicule and ostracism. As if the government is not our affair.
