The Twenty-Three Percent- Part 2

After reading part-I somebody asked me, “Would you vote for Bill Gates, Obama, Warren Buffet or Dr Yunus (famous names) *IF* (hypothetically) they happened to be convicted crooks, yet known to have seen their projects thru? (IF they were corrupt they shouldn’t have been in the ballot list in the first place).”

This is a complex question with a complex answer. The Bangladeshi voters are not a monolithic group. All of us think differently and use different criterion to judge candidates. Ideologically, these people shouldn’t even get nomination, let alone get voted to power, but truth is, these guys keep coming back.

Here are some home truths:

1. We give the intellectuals -- buddhijibis and the sushils way-- too much credit for their intelligence and their understanding of politics. And btw, that group includes you and me. We think we’re a better judge of people, politics and policies. That's our class arrogance.
2. The man on the street’s (the rickshawallah, phoolwala, dokandar, etc and then their wives and children) political acumen is much sharper than yours or mine
3. When you and I, and the sushil’s judge the competency of the political parties or candidates, we do it for the text book/newspaper reasons.
4. When the man on the street votes he votes for the man he thinks will make the most difference in his life. This holds true for most constituencies aside from Dhaka. In Dhaka, the man on the street votes for the party they think is less evil.

The most vocal argument for the case against “NO VOTE” is that “the man on the street is not aware of it” or “the man on the street won’t know how to use it”. Newsflash: They understand this concept way better than you and me. When a rickshawala says “ Vote dia laabh ki, jei ashuk, amar ki?”, that doesn’t only reflect his nonchalance or disappointment, but that’s also a testament of the fact that he would rather neither party/candidate came to power. So you think if we give him the option of ensuring netiher came to power, he wouldn't take it?

The last few weeks have been spent in the New Market/ Gawsia or Mirpur area. The sellers, be it of sarees, flowers or food, are the ones usually most affected by government decisions, opposition reaction and hence by default, election result. On the day Khaleda Zia’s 48 hour ultimatum for the 4-point demands was about to expire, I was at New Market buying cloth. We received a sms that said that Dhaka police had been asked to stay alert and that some commotion (to put it mildly) was anticipated. This triggered the auto-reaction to run back home. This is when the cloth-sellers, all five of them (aged between 15-27) started laughing. “Apa, eishob dabi to koto shunlam. Manuk ar na manuk election hoibo na. Hoileo ar emon ki hoibo. Bhoi paan ken? Oidin ekhon nai. Rastai aaj k ar bus puraibo na. Madam pach bochor e kichu korte pare nai, ekhon ar ki korbe? Bon bon”. So they basically figured out, what actually, eventually, did happen -- Nothing! They were perhaps more skeptical about a fully fair and participatory election than my father (and believe me that’s hard to come by). That's how aware they are.

A voter in Sylhet sadar I know will still vote for Saifur Rahman. Why? Because his AL opponent can’t really speak Sylheti and fears that the AL nominee will care too much Dhaka’s plush drawing room politics and parties and less about Sylhet grassroots. Textbook voters like you and me would not vote hesitate to vote for the AL nominee. The AL nominee in question has a cleaner slate, but what this voter is looking for and what the nominee is missing, is the connection. They cannot relate to one and another and the voter doesn’t FEEL that this guy will do much for Sylhet sadar. That’s our man on the street. That’s also the 19 year old voter in Sylhet sadar. But with the “NO VOTE” option, he might decide that neither the sylheti millionaire nor the alien sylheti-bengali deserve his vote and that the parties will just have to find a more deserving candidate to get the Sylhet sadar seat.

At the end of the day, we have to accept that the reason the “crooks” keep coming back to power is because they actually appeal to the residents of their constituencies. Not all votes are bought or stolen. Not every ballot box is stolen neither is it rigged. These “crooks” are nominated because we don’t press our parties to give us a more viable alternative. Therefore, to me atleast, the "NO VOTE" seems like a way that we can use to force parties to look for cleaner candidates.

For those who still want to vote for the textbook reasons, I earnestly request all to actually read the party manifestos which will be out shortly. All the shopkeepers I know now are eagerly waiting to hear about the “promises”, but they say that they are always disappointed because there’s never an action plan to follow these pledges through. A check on corruption will also be a part of the new set of pledges.

The new 23% also includes people who will also vote for these “crooks” with full knowledge of their alleged corruption. But some may still decide that none of these people really deserve our vote. The “NO VOTE” may be a new concept. It may not garner a lot of votes this time around. But it will divide the vote bank. It will at least show the politicians that we, the people, still have the power. Then may be in the next election, they’ll remember that all of us might decide that neither AL nor BNP deserve power. Let’s force them to come up with and implement action plans as opposed to mere pledges. Those of us who can, let's at least read and analyse the manifestos. If we want to do it the textbook way, then let's at least do it right.