Finding clean candidates
Political realist, On e-mail
Much is being said and written about clean candidates in our news media and in various meetings and seminars. But who will bell the cat? Apart from some independent candidates, most of them will be nominated by the parties. This nomination process in itself is tainted, for public image alone is not the criteria. The real driving factor for the party is either money or muscle in that order. For money can even buy muscle, if muscle is not directly provided.The old saying "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" is non existent in Bangladesh, where the people who count are generally without principle, and morally as unclean as can be visualized-- in thoughts, words and deeds, barring a few. These rare few we will not probably need all the fingers of both hands to count them. The fact of life is, we preach democracy but practice autocracy in a totalitarian dictatorship format which reminds one of the governments of Germany and Italy of the early 1940s. Our governance format is a mixture of Mafia and Nazi based practices combining the worst of both, with rewards provided for the perpetrators of these activities down the line. This is graphically reiterated by Shanta's case. I can predict the foot dragging of this legal exercise for years to come till the aggrieved is worn out monetarily and mentally and a quiet hush in the sideline is engineered. Shanta's saving grace is her close relatives in important places. Any other person would have been trampled down or done away with through crossfire, or otherwise. In such an ugly environment; whether we like it or not; this is what actually takes place. Where then can we find clean people to govern us? With tongue in cheek, I feel we are not possibly fit to exist as free people in a civilised and rational environment of governance. The right of realistic participation in parliament based on personal values, consciousness and judgment has been trampled down by disallowing voting across party lines in the house of parliament. MPs can vote on party lines only, not based on beliefs and personal values. No wonder, parliament proceedings are so dull with only two polarised viewpoints available. Beginning from here what else but cronyism can survive? Democratic practices, if any, are highjacked by the party top rankers to do or undo what only they think is proper. The rest are but a herd of followers for voting only if needed. Till we cannot sort out this issue and unshackle day to day administration from party interferences and opportunism at all levels of government; we will only get what we deserve. This we have been seeing around us since the creation of Bangladesh. Finding and putting up clean candidates will remain an uphill if not impossible task where the whole election process revolves round money spent! This process is unfortunately lubricated and driven by money and muscle (coming by means fair or foul) and not political programme or popularity which should be the democratic norm. What chance then is there for a clean candidate? Can one wonder why fundamentalism with its trickle down funds (foreign religious aid?) reaching the largely uneducated masses coupled with very strong religion based beliefs are expanding in less developed rural areas. They are becoming popular day by day compared to the current practice of popular secular politics mired by cronyism and corruption at all levels. The voting pattern in future elections beyond 2007 will demonstrate this fact and should not surprise anyone.
| 
