There’s a Bengali adage which says: “The king who is overly praised (for external orientation) on foreign lands is eventually humiliated in his own country.” Although not a universal truth, it is still valid to us, relative to certain situations.
The kingdom is no longer there, but the people remain subjects or “proja” (of a feudal estate), not owners of the republic. Probably to make up for this discrepancy through rhetoric, our leaders used a redundant term – the people’s republic.
When an Indian minister, on Twitter, described Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as the “torchlight of democracy,” she had reasons to be elated. She may keep her conscience away from the record of the January 5 polls her government held, ignoring all appeals and demands to make it participatory. The Indian leader may not know Bangladesh well or may have taken a soft position deliberately.
Obviously aware of its ranking at home, the Hasina administration continued to lobby for being accepted worldwide as its top priority. Apart from planning a series of state-level visits overseas, Dhaka is now focused on appeasing key international actors and making necessary concessions to earn indirect recognition for the government, troubled by a legitimacy crisis since the one-sided polls.
It is understood that there is a master plan regarding foreign policy, which requires a lot of investments, to attain the only goal of staying in power with foreign blessings. No one is bothered about pro-people steps when the ruler can’t win public support.
And when the masses are isolated from the regime and vice versa, it’s easier for a coterie and some parasites to milk benefits from such a weak government. In turn, the small group of sycophants provide unqualified support to whatever steps the regime takes. Sheikh Hasina’s is a historically-proven compulsion: The king, his council, and collaborators all knew they had no other choice but to fight out the enemy troops at any cost to save themselves from downfall.
The foreigners’ praise of such a regime may raise some eyebrows. But they do it to ensure their interests, in an advantageous bargain with an unpopular government which is ready to offer more-than-possible gains in exchange for verbal support.
So, why would Japan’s Shinzo Abe not ostensibly applaud, for the time being, premier Hasina, given Dhaka’s sacrifice at the United Nations? He even need not retract Tokyo’s criticism of the January 5 elections.
The cost of clinging to power, despite domestic political bankruptcy, may be carried over through surrender to foreigners and the regime’s huge debt of gratitude to outsiders may add further costs as a consequence of depriving the people of the opportunity to vote for change.
A lonely ruler does also have the luxury of making foreigners happy. Popular satire writer Syed Mujtaba Ali, in his novel Shabnam, called Afghanistan’s King Amanullah a madman, referring to steps like his introduction of Western suits for the conservative Afghans. The king, appreciated abroad, had to face defeat to his local rivals. Almost the same was the fate of Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran.
Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki, once pampered by his Western patrons, was shown the door when he lost utility losing confidence in his people. Never forget HM Ershad, the dictator who took a bold decision of joining the multinational forces to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in 1990 and had to bow out of the office in the face of popular upheaval.
Those who wishfully think Hasina is about to gain the acceptance of Washington DC fail to read between the lines of what foreign leaders say and mean in their official statements. Despite European reservation about her election, she managed to visit London and meet the British prime minister – what a great diplomatic success.
But David Cameron noted Britain’s “disappointment over the January 2014 Bangladesh election with more than half of constituencies uncontested,” according to a Downing Street spokesperson. The Bangladesh premier is going to go to the UN headquarters. Let’s hope her unofficial advisers do not forget the UN secretary general’s reminder of the need for a dialogue for holding credible elections during his meeting with President Abdul Hamid.
A meaningful national ballot, if it is held at all, will prove how far the Bangladeshis support Hasina’s Awami League. Finally, history will prove what kind of policies the premier has pursued for the citizens.
Foreigners did not and will not change our fate. We can neither blame them nor be so glad if they show some courtesy to those leaders who are somehow holding on to power. Even when they look down upon our leaders who don’t represent us, we, as Bangladeshis, still feel insulted.
