I do have some more thoughts on my Exile II post, but since I am barely keeping my head above water with exams, I am going to have to keep it short in responding to Mash and Shaijad’s insightful comments . Again, my apologies for this being utterly disjointed, vague and perhaps vapid:

1.  I think I might have been misunderstood - and that’s my own fault. My point with #2 in the Exile II post was not to defend what the SOE government has been doing. This is why I started my post with talking about due process in #1. The rule of law is obviously preferable to me. My point, to clarify, was this: even if exile is the option that the SOE government wants to take, there is a way of doing it that would be consistent with the rule of law.  This was the plea bargain option. The plea bargain option was not a description of what the government IS doing, but an idea for what they SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they cared (or even thought) about maintaining a modicum of transparency and accountability.

2. Instead of course, we agree, the SOE authorities decided to resort to naked unbridled power. Laying aside the morality of doing so (and I do think it is wrong to do so), the problem with naked unbridled power is that if you don’t have a lot of it, you overshoot. This is the fact that BNP failed to see in its machinations in its last term. And the lesson eluded the SOE government too, as we are seeing with the minus-2 option falling apart (as it seems to right now…) The SOE government overshot - as it was bound to do some time with its ad hoc decision-making that relied less upon process and legality and more upon strength and some claim of relative moral legitimacy.

The problem with relying on strength of course is that if there’s someone stronger, and strenght is all you’re depending on - you’re in trouble. The problem with relying on relative moral legitimacy is you have to live up to it. Double-talking advisors don’t help.

3. Think about what would have happened if the SOE government had gone through due process before exiling Khaleda Zia - for example by making her sign onto a plea bargain accompanied by a clear unambiguous statement from the government explaining why they were doing what they were doing. The Saudis would definitely not be able to humiliate them/make look plain silly by asking for Khaleda Zia to come to the embassy for a visa interview.  And I’m thinking that a good segment of the population would point to the plea bargain and say, “They’re not bundling her away unfairly. She’s admitted to things, and because of the (objectively verifiable) reasons that the government is giving, it makes sense for her to be sent away. They’re being straight with us.” Instead we got double-speak, and naturally disillusionment.  

I realize that a plea bargain such as this would not be unproblematic. How did they arrive at it? What kind of back-room negotiations took place? Why not just go through the courts instead? &c.  And may be there are no set answers to these, but at least the SOE should try.

I guess my point then - and this is where I agree with Shaijad (and I guess where Mash is coming from) - transparency and accountability are of paramount importance. And a government like the SOE government - suspect as it is because of its unelectedness - can only maintain legitimacy if it tries to be as transparent and accountable as possible. And the only way to do it is to keep coming back to the public with objectively verifiable statements. None of this, “Trust us” business. We’ve seen this all before.

4. The SOE government clearly does not get it. I agree with Mash that as long as fundamental rights remain in abeyance - anything they do is suspect. What we have to tell anyone who claims to want to do good and fix things still remain, “Why should we believe you? Show us your bona fides. Show us things that we can check your intentions against. Objectively.”

5. But the same skepticism should govern our reaction to anyone else claiming the helm as well - be it Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina, or Poltu bhai who lives down the goli.  Yes, nothing has changed since 1/11 - definitely not the questions we should be asking of those who would lead us.

6. Nothing that I have seen in the public statements of either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia since 1/11 suggest that they’ve really learnt anything from the experience in the last 3 months. What indication do we have that we are not to see a repeat of the last 15 years if elections were to be held 6/12/18 months from now and they were to return to power? What have we seen of soul-searching self-reflection? What have we seen of remorse and the possibility of redemption? In fact, it would be safe to say that every indication we have received from the netris suggests that things will actually be worse if they return. In their statements is the same sense of entitlement, the same assumption of infallibility. 

This does not absolve the SOE government of its failures to meet the standards of accountability and transparency. (And intelligence! Is intelligence too much to ask for? You hear some of the statements of certain advisors made in the last few days and you wonder how they ever got to where they did…) Our standards are not, must not be, lower. And yes, we have very little that demonstrates that the SOE government cares about either accountability and transparency - which are its only lifelines to legitimacy.

Our true hope lies in ideas and institutions - not parties, personalities or platitudes. This is as it always was - but our young nation has failed to recognize this at every critical juncture in its history. There’s enough blame to go around.