DHAKA: There are many in Bangladesh, particularly among the country’s intelligentsia, who frequently complain, through their write-ups and public speeches, that the two major political parties, the Bangladesh Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, have nothing in common, and that they always take almost diametrically opposite positions on any matter of national importance. The section of the intelligentsia in question, therefore, tirelessly advocates a ‘minimum consensus’ among the two opposing camps on ‘certain national issues’ for better political and economic progress of the country.

The intelligentsia in question unmistakably fails, perhaps conveniently, to recognise the fact that the apparently feuding political parties have unquestionable consensus among themselves, particularly when it comes to stand in the ways of the democratic interests of the people at large – be it legal, political, economic or cultural. The similarity between the two apparently dissimilar political parties finds clearest expression in what they call ‘strategic moves’ to woo smaller partners for defeating each other in the crude struggle for power: politics, ideology, ethics or morality are unknown territories for them, when it comes to grab state power or jeopardise the democratic interests of the common people. The lamenting intelligentsia, dying to forge consensus among the ‘feuding parties’, just needs to ponder a little to discover the ‘consensus’, which has quietly been existing for quite some time now.

The latest display of the unholy consensus between the two so-called feuding parties found expression in their not-so-golden silence over the grave disservice that the highest judiciary has recently done to the potential of democratising the electoral process. The Supreme Court in a democracy is expected to broaden the legal scope for the people, by way of positive judicial activism, to choose better candidates in the national elections and thus exercise greater authority over the electoral process that brings in to existence the national body of lawmakers for five years. But the Supreme

Court of Bangladesh has rather quietly blocked, on December 19, a legal scope for the electorates, created earlier by the High Court in 2005, to form informed opinion about the parliamentary candidates before casting their votes.

The High Court on May 25, 2005 had issued an order, upon a writ petition, directing the Election Commission to make it mandatory for candidates in parliamentary polls to provide certain personal information and make the information public in their respective constituencies. The required information includes the candidate’s academic qualifications, criminal case records, if any, profession, sources of income, statement of assets and liabilities and bank loans, if any, taken by the candidate for his/her company or dependants. The High Court also directed the Election Commission to arrange for joint projection meetings of the candidates of the parliamentary constituency to make sure the candidates stand on a platform to answer the queries of the people before the polls.

Understandably, the set of information in question is of crucial importance for the people to form informed opinion about the candidates before casting their votes, which is directly linked with the required improvement of the quality of the parliament that makes/amends laws of the land, and formulates policies on matters of national importance. In absence of adequate information about the contestants, the electorates are vulnerable to the rhetorical fiery speeches of the candidates, and therefore, always stand the chance of being hoodwinked by lies, lies and more lies.

But the Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the High Court order for three months and directed the Election Commission to receive the nomination papers of the candidates with the portion of personal records remaining blank.

Understandably, the candidates in the ensuing parliamentary polls, now scheduled for January 22, have been relieved of the democratic duty of disclosing their personal records of crucial public importance. The highest court of the country, which is believed to be the last resort for the people to have justice, has unambiguously done an injustice to the people, by way of denying the voters of their democratic right to know about the would-be lawmakers beforehand.

However, both the BNP and the Awami League have notorious track records of displaying violent attitude to, even carrying out violence against, the highest court, to a varying degree though, in case/s of the court’s legal gestures or judgments that they found unpleasant. But in the present case, where the court decision has gone against the democratic interest of the people at large, both the political camps, although engaged in a bitter struggle for power, preferred to keep silent.Why? The original High Court order, which the Supreme Court has stayed, threatened the interest of many a candidate on both side of the political divide, who have unpleasant political, financial and criminal records to hide from the public and whose electoral strength emanates from undisclosed sources of money and links with the world of crime. It remains to be seen whether or not the mainstream intelligentsia, unhappy over the lack of understanding between the feuding political parties, has the intellectual courage and honesty to effectively protest against the unholy understanding of the political camps against the idea of democratic growth of society and politics.

This, however, is not the only area of similarity between the apparently dissimilar political camps. Take the example of their competition to win the heart of HM Ershad, the fallen military dictator, whom both the political parties, along with many other social and cultural forces, had rightly found an enemy of the democratic growth of society and, therefore, fought against his regime in the 1980s. Both the parties have been showing shameless enthusiasm over the last few years to gain the support of Ershad, a convict, for gaining the state power, thanks to crude electoral mathematics in a parliamentary democracy.

Or take the example of the apparently feuding parties’ competition over appeasing the obscurantist Islamist forces – the forces that loudly denounce the core principle of democracy that the affairs of the earthly state needs to be run on the basis of the constitutional provisions formulated on the ‘general will’ of the people, with the divine religious decrees remaining to be practised by the individual citizens in the private sphere of life. While the BNP finds Jamaat-e-Islami to be a ‘democratic’ force, the Awami League finds Islamic Constitution Movement an ally in its ‘struggle for democracy’.

The fact remains that both the Islamist parties unambiguously preach that they are working to set up of a theocratic state in Bangladesh, which would be governed on the basis of the ‘divine’ decrees of Islam.

The list of similarities between the apparently dissimilar political camps led by the BNP and the Awami League could easily be made much longer, particularly for those lamenting the lack of consensus among the ‘feuding’ parties. But a further detail is, perhaps, hardly necessary for those who are aware of the similarity of the parties’ foreign policies – the main objective of which is to keep happy the political establishment of the United States on the one hand and that of India on the other, economic policies – the aim of which is to keep the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund happy by blindly following many of their anti-people prescriptions, so on and so forth.

Ordinary customers of both private and government banks, who are disappointed and disgusted by falling standards of efficiency that they have been experiencing for quite some time, feel somewhat relieved at what the State Bank Governor Dr Shamshad Akhtar has said this month. They are optimistic, generally, while others have their fingers crossed!! She has said that the “uncompetitive environment and inefficiency of banks were responsible for high banking spreads which deprived depositors of their positive returns.”

A major dimension to this is that the media is flooded with luring advertisements, promoting banking products, on a scale that the banking industry cannot deliver efficiently. While these advertisements over sell, and so do the client service and relationship touting men and women, the service that customers get is declining, reaching the depths at times that drive the ordinary small account-holders to anger and frustration. And the bank staff appear trained not to respond.

I have heard customers complaining for a couple of years now that the young men and women in the private and government banks and their online branches just do not care about the service they provide, and this makes the banking experience unrewarding. Not just in terms of financial returns, but in terms of the quality of service. One woman customer, tired of indifference of the staff of the branch that she deals with asked “why don’t newspapers write about the state of affairs in the banks… in the small branches located in the less-developed parts of the city, as well as those in the posh areas of Clifton and Defence?”

And she went on to say “if newspapers and electronic media can expose various government organisations and departments, as well as public dealing departments, what is it that holds them back from highlighting the growing way in which customers are being given a raw deal, in many cases. Is it the advertising clout the commercial banks have? One hopes that the State Bank will look into this aspect also.

I have heard some amazing stories from customers about the inefficiency of banks. They complain that banks just don’t care in most cases. One customer, who has recently tried to get a housing loan from a leading bank is aghast at the way the bank has come up with ‘hidden charges’ and all the promises of an early availability of a ‘home’ appeared bogus. He was made to believe that it was a smooth process, but in reality, it turned out to be a sour experience, bordering on a nightmare.

Another ordinary customer who took an auto loan from a foreign bank, located on Allama Iqbal Road, complained that even after he had paid it, the bank continued to deduct the same amount from his current account, for several months; until the statement of balance came and this was revealed. Complaints from the customer began a never ending correspondence with the branch manager and his staff who maintained that it was the auto loan department at the head office that was responsible for it. The customer kept saying that he was dealing with the bank and didn’t want to hear explanations and excuses. In all this, yet another problem surfaced, that it is difficult to reach the concerned staff, in most banks, when a customer has a problem. On the phone, in what is pompously called ‘online banking’ it can be a long wait, and repeated calls.

And in yet another kind of banking inefficiency, an individual using a credit card of a leading foreign bank, had a frustrating time when he wanted a change of photograph on his card. The bank employee who received the application form misplaced it and then found it three weeks later. After that, the bank sent a letter to the customer telling him that he had sent a black and white photograph instead of a coloured one. There ensued communication on this point, after which this bank sent him two credit cards, identical. That much for safety of a credit card!

A very common problem that bank customers encounter is related to the ATM cards; there is either no money or not enough money available at times. Or, yet another disgusting experience where the ATM card gets trapped. The insecurity of some ATM location is another dimension that is assuming increasing proportions. Now that the State Bank has directed that banks will receive utility bills from January 31, public is apprehensive. It is feared that the performance of ATMs will begin to decline rapidly as the staff assigned may lack the motivation that is required.

But despite all that is worrying, there is hope now that the State Bank governor is showing an unusual will to stand up for the common man.