In the 1980’s, proceeds from “illegal” arms sales to the Iranians, which was later found to be ransom payment in exchange for American hostages, were channeled to a right- wing guerilla insurgency against a left leaning Nicaraguan government known as the Contras. After failed attempts at covering up the debacle, which included among other things- a Presidential address by the then President Ronald Reagan, which he later reneged, the truth revealed itself. The international scandal that ensued would leave the Reagan administration struggling to find scapegoats who could be distanced from the office of the President. The efforts convinced few, and abruptly ended many careers, although many later returned to public life. This would go on to be known as the Iran- Contra Affair, etched into history as one of America’s biggest foreign policy misjudgments. And in the end, she ended up backing human rights violations as leftist conspiracies, in the interest of bringing wide spread reform to Nicaragua. That, never happened.

Also, in the 1980’s, soon after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, first the Carter administration and later the Reagan administration, would embark on a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters, or the “mujahideen”. In addition to all concerned government agencies, several think tanks, aid organizations, and other republican outfits would cough up ample resources to rally support for these “mujahideen”, to liberate the Republic of communist forces, and establish a strategic presence in the region. The largely Arab CIA trained mercenary forces who fought alongside the Taliban during this time, given their differences, would later go on to build their own ghettos and communities and find safe haven in war-torn Afghanistan. This band of brothers then came to call themselves “Al- Qaeda”. Years later, 9/11 happened. In the end, we ended up funding and training extremist elements, in the interest of bringing wide spread reform to Afghanistan. That, never happened.

To be fair, this notion of supporting dissenting elements to catalyze a change an external force desires (an loose version of “Divide & Rule”) however, has had it’s successes. The concept met with some of it’s most prominent successes during the colonial era, and found few documented defeats (although colonial powers were rarely known to admit defea, let alone document them!). In modern times too this game of russian roulette has found limited success, often at inexplicable and unpredictable costs (read: Iraqi Provisional Authority; jury’s still out on that, yes?).

In recent weeks, reports have emerged that several elements within the CA’s team, with cautious distance from the CA himself, have been using their clout to bargain with mid-level leaders and dissenting elements who have of late been side-lined in party politics, on both sides of the isle. These leaders in turn have been leveraging their new found intimacy with the SOE government to drum up support to introduce drastic leadership changes in both parties. That, was the carrot. What’s the stick? Well, them threatening to leave the party. And given the humble rise of the LDP and Prof Yunus floating political ambitions, my friend, they have options. This strategic offensive however, is almost as ill conceived and far worse executed, as the government’s minus 2 scheme. With civil society and intelligentsia riding it’s coat tails, the SOE government seems to increasingly find itself on the defensive on issues like transparency and accountability; while it still continues to exercise it’s ambiguous and sweeping emergency powers.

Today, Bangladesh and it’s citizens are in a much better shape. A corrupt system of endemic proportions, which had until now remained unchallenged and accepted as a reality of life in Bangladesh, is now being taken to task. The country finds itself basking in an air of confidence, reinitiated in the belief that corruption can actually be curtailed (notwithstanding the sensationalism of finding relief goods in ministerial homes of course). The government is engaging culprits at every level best it can, and taking the time to structure viable legal cases against them. Price of essentials, thanks to the BDR, is on the dive, and every week seems to bring news of another corrupt politician being sued by the ACC. And if that isn’t enough, the Tigers beat India and South Africa (the CA of course, had little to do with that). Indeed, I can’t quite recall the last time it felt so good to see a SOE. Much of the credit goes to the CA and his team (not all his team- no, not all). But now, Bangladesh must gradually make the transition from relatively successful crisis management , to institution building and long term sustainable progress under a democracy.

The inherent nature of politics dictates the tacit reality of constant power plays, miscommunication and infighting. Add to that the complexity of party leaders (who might I add have ruled for much of the country’s existence) put to unexplained exile, still others imprisoned, and the legitimacy of an unelected government dangerously swinging in the scales, and you see the fragile state of the Bangladeshi political landscape.

Mind you, by no stretch of the imagination, am I defending our rogue leaders. Much of my sentiments are echoed in Shamshir’s post below. None of the party high-ups have even hinted at the prospect of admitting to mistakes, but repeatedly manage to divert the discussion towards “constant reform” that they’ve been engaging in all along (apparently the rest of us missed the memo); without ever acknowledging the past. In many cases, the leadership on both sides of the isle seem more resolved in their belligerence and self- righteousness.

So on the one hand, there is probably some truth to the fact that, short- term to get the culprits off the streets, in a system of lawlessness, extra judicial steps are an unfortunate reality. But on the other, you wonder of the precedents these initiatives are setting. And we really don’t unelected governments issuing any more licenses of sweeping power, the elected governments of past have already mastered that art. And this is where the government seems to be suffering from chronic schizophrenia.

On the one hand, it seeks to create long term policy reform and institutions that long outlive it’s authors and current political leaderships, but on the other it seems to be repeatedly finding itself responding with knee jerk reactions and initiatives which only seem beneficial in the short- term. And while these short term victories are necessary in turn-around schemes (my consulting skills coming into play), it is increasingly beginning to take on an air of permanence. Frankly, I am either ignorant to the circumstances on the ground, or am expecting too much from a bad situation; either way the CA’s lack of foresight of late has astonished me.

Although, without naming names, I would like to squarely lay blame on the drooping shoulders of a rather stocky advisor, who in my opinion, has the collective intelligence of a gardening tool. With both major political parties in a state of disarray, and mass pressure for reform, the government is ideally positioned to call for widespread political reform in both parties. Instead, in its’ bid to do away with dynastic politics, the government has decided to promote other individuals in it’s efforts for political reform.

Firstly, there is a reason why these particular leaders are “mid-level” or “marginalized”. And if by giving them legitimacy in this state of emergency, we hope for long term sustainable effects, then we’re headed for sure disappointment, as Maulana Rumi said “this too shall pass”. In a nation, where we constantly find our institutions failing us, and the personality of the individuals almost always overshadowing the offices they bear, why wouldn’t we rather go for formalizing of structures that can carry on long after the leaders of today? The ruling party, and the opposition party, are constitutional institutions of the republic, serving at the pleasure of the republic. The people will eventually rally behind the party’s long-standing leadership, even if they were “misled” for a few brief moments. But let’s say hypothetically- this did work, what prevents our newly minted leaders from starting their own dynasties?

Secondly, if it is reform we seek, why wouldn’t we engage the existing leadership, which already has the legitimacy and clout to implement the initiatives in a time sensitive manner? These are daunting challenges; and bans on indoor politics, power vacuums within the parties, imprisoned party brass etc. won’t make it easier. On the other hand, this does mean that the pressure’s on, conditions propitious, and reform agendas ripe for the picking.

We must actively pursue the rank and file of both parties, decentralize power, and institute checks and balances at every level of partisan politics. For once, let’s have an election based on the issues, and distinctive policies that deal with those issues. Let’s bring the institution of AL or the institution of BNP, LDP, to the forefront.

Why would the parties oblige? Well, hopefully because they realize that if they wish their parties and legacies to live on, they will need to let other leaders carry on after them, and also because, the CA said so! We could also conveniently remind them, that the 7th infantry battalion works for him.

And why would the CA be interested? Because a good reformer not only dismantles the system of corruption, but puts in place a reliable system of governance that evolves those reforms into institutional policies. In the absence of these long term initiatives, our country will remain a nation where government officials pathologically abuse their powers, our heightened fear of the ACC will slowly wane, government agencies and it’s officials will seep back into unbridled corruption, national progress will remain an abstract concept; and worst of all, the renewed faith of our citizens will become a distant memory.