Unless something of a dramatic nature happens in Bangladesh in the next few days, the election scheduled by the Muhammad Yunus regime will go ahead on February 12.
But then the inevitable question arises: What happens once the polling stations close? What kind of credibility, if at all, will the election have on the day after?
For the very first time in Bangladesh’s history, politics is on a speedy slide to irony. More appropriately, it is an officially recognised farce, even if Yunus and his unconstitutional regime have not dubbed it as a farce.
How is it a farce? It is not only the fact that the country’s largest political party, one that led the nation to freedom fifty-four years ago, is not in the electoral process.
More to the point, the election, or call it a so-called election, has been decreed by a so-called government, with the schedule for the voting announced by a so-called election commission.
In the months since internal and external conspiracies brought about the fall of the Awami League government, legality and constitutional government and rule of law have been fugitive.
For the vast majority of the population, February 12 will go down in history as a dark day, a period in time when Bangladesh’s people will have been informed, in so many ways, that they do not count in national politics.
And let it not be forgotten either that the so-called election has been scheduled once every symbol of national history, every sign of the War of Liberation has been destroyed by mobs on the watch of the Yunus outfit.
In simple terms, Bangladesh is today in the grip of anti-national elements, the enemy within. None of the political parties taking part in the farcical vote adheres to the principles of the War of Liberation.
The BNP has for decades promoted a political philosophy that is at variance with the realities that shaped the national struggle for freedom.
The Jamaat-e-Islami, which not only opposed Bangladesh’s freedom but also was complicit in the Pakistan occupation army’s systematic genocide in 1971, has never come forth with any expression of contrition over its infamous role fifty-four years ago.
And there comes the irony. Social media has been active, displaying images of so-called secular Bangladeshi figures cosying up to both the BNP and the Jamaat in recent weeks.
Editors have sprinted from place to place to demonstrate their importance, if at all it is importance, to the men who today dream of taking charge of Bangladesh’s political future.
And yet it is anything but importance or self-importance that has been featured on social media. Netizens have been quick to spot the fawning and the sycophancy that have come to be associated with such behaviour.
Into this bizarre political scene, almost Gothic in nature, has come the Oli Ahmed issue. Oli, once close to the late military ruler Ziaur Rahman and a minister in the BNP dispensation, has lately got close to the Jamaat and expects to win a seat in the February 12 exercise.
That is fine, up to a point. But what has injected humour into the political scene is the ‘revelation’, and that too by the Jamaat leadership, that it was not Zia who ‘declared’ Bangladesh’s independence in March 1971 but Oli Ahmed, who was in the Pakistan army working under then Major Zia, who ‘declared’ independence. In what circumstances and when and how Oli ‘declared’ Bangladesh’s independence has unsurprisingly become the butt of jokes in the country.
Observe the irony. An anti-liberation Jamaat takes it upon itself to impose the Oli story on the country.
What might be the consequences? For one thing, it is plain mischief that Oli’s friends have indulged in.
For another, it is an attempt to provoke the BNP into coming forth with a rebuttal, given that the BNP leadership since the assassination of General Zia in May 1981 has consistently peddled the equally false idea that the late military ruler ‘declared’ independence in March 1971.
It is, therefore, now a battle that the BNP and the Jamaat will likely engage in over the independence declaration.
Oli Ahmed, who penned his memoirs some years ago, did not mention in them that he ‘declared’ independence. He will have a tough time explaining this questionable revelation about his past.
As for the broad picture around February 12, questions persist as to whether the vote will at all take place on the day. If the polls go ahead, what might the results be, despite the empty polling stations owing to the absence of Awami League supporters on the scene?
The BNP, clearly in a bind now, would like to win. At the other end, the Jamaat does not intend to lose. When voting ends on February 12, in all likelihood, demonstrations will break out, organised by those who will have lost the election.
One is therefore not sure that conditions will remain peaceful at the break of dawn on February 13.
The worry does not end there. Will there be a civilian elected government once the so-called election takes place? If there is, what will be the span of its life? The facts cannot be ignored.
Any government that is sworn in will be a weak proposition and will indeed lack legitimacy because of the absence of the inclusivity factor in the election.
Again, what plan does Yunus have regarding the installation of the new government? He has planned an official visit to Japan in March. In what capacity will he travel, since by that time a new government should be in place. Yunus has not shown any sign that he and his advisors will relinquish authority after February 12.
If Yunus refuses to quit office, how might the BNP, the Jamaat or both handle the situation? The bottom line is simple, though. It is that following February 12, the crisis will deepen to a point where the question of a fresh and, of course, inclusive election under a properly constituted caretaker administration will acquire prominence.
ALSO READ: Bangladesh: February 12 and all those questions
If that happens, the Awami League will then find its way back to the electoral landscape, a probability that will have the Yunus regime, the BNP and the Jamaat scrambling to find ways of confronting Sheikh Hasina and her party on their home ground.
For now, though, one must keep fingers crossed. February 12 remains in the shadow of grave uncertainty.
