Lessons from the French

One cannot look at the papers and not realise that there is a political tsunami running across Europe that is pushing for change in leadership – most of the power from this growing tidal wave of reform finds its source in two areas of the political landscape – need for a much delayed economic reform coupled with xenophobic social turmoils.

Europe had started to increasingly look inwards as the ominous shadow of the Euro zone crisis drew dark clouds over once robust economies that had hedged its bets on more fragile ones. What was considered revolutionary economic tactics in building a strong unified Europe was in another form unsubstantiated optimism that lesser economies would take the correct measures for a stronger united Europe over the health of their own struggling economies.

In a way that is exactly what happened and the Euro zone prospered, until the lesser economies had finally to choose its own health over the economic stability of the whole. In what is probably now a recognised vicious cycle the whole euro zone prospered on anticipated prosperity – loans were provided to pay for loans in the false hope that eventually there would be a surplus (because to think otherwise would be unimaginable).


Robust economies like Germany and France (England could stay out and show a braver face because they hadn't been taken in by the single currency on dint of its own influence at the beginning) have had to take a serious hit as a result of their own unmitigated optimism.

Under the European Union (EU) Germany demonstrated leadership and became the de facto economic EU superpower – France followed on the coat tails to benefit when times were up (Italy under the glittery and cherubic Berlusconi was imagined to have prospered because people were to hung up on the former PM's rich and famous lifestyle. Little notice beyond symbolic wrist slapping was placed on its economy).

When France began to wake up to the Euro zone crisis the country was by that time already under the flamboyant leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy (who was probably France's own answer to the Berlusconi mania; after all the greatest lovers were decidedly French and not Romans!). As the clouds of inflation and possible economic stagnation hover across in the horizon, the game is up for flamboyance and seeming excess – the French have sobered up, so to speak, and are calling for a socialist in the form of Hollande.

More importantly Hollande also calls for a more French-like French people who are more typically 'Frenchy' – i.e. possibly a pure white and more non-immigranty without actually coming out and saying it (which could have been Le Pen's folly; after all the French like to remain xenophobic without the associated branding – especially in depressed economic times like these).

[Disclaimer: The above paragraphs are very loosely based on facts as they are but are more a figment of the writer's distortion of reality to push a point.]

So what's my point? Actually I haven't any beyond drawing a parallel between the imminent change in French leadership, in the form of a socialist party that hasn't been in power for nearly two decades, to the condition for urgent political reform in Bangladesh. Ostensibly an need for introspection and allowance for another party that hasn't been in power in a similar span of time.

While this might seem on first thought as an endorsement for the Jatiya Party of former president H.M. Ershad, who was ousted two decades ago, it is not (even though the JP fits the bill by that definition). What I wish to proclaim is that there is urgent need for a political option beyond the existing guises of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) or the Awami League (AL) - that have monopolised the political landscape through the 1990s til today.

[Note to readers who read between the lines in what is basically empty space, a third political option is NOT necessarily a military intervention but can actually be a legitimate political party perhaps (unimaginable in some quarters for sure). Moreover one should not discount the third political option as a fully reformed existing stalwart as well.]

I have always advocated democracy, but the democracy that present politicians preach is unacceptable in its selectivity – everyone being equal but a few being more equal than others.

In my opinion Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina have given ample reasons to conclude that their leadership skills are inadequate to tackle the existing problems in Bangladesh. Corruption has prospered rather than declined since Ershad was removed on such charges – sadly the scope of corruption during the 1980s (when Ershad ran supreme) is negligible in contrast to the situation that is evident now.

Over the years the 'divide and rule' mantra had given way to the 'divide and conquer' mantra; eventually succumbing to the 'winner take all' formula. None of which touch on the basic tenets of a democracy. 

There are dark clouds over our heads in Bangladesh. Perhaps it is time for introspection and self-assessment; maybe it is time for a little xenophobia of our own, to look not towards outsiders (in the guise of governments, envoys or institutions) but to ourselves for the real answers to our very real problems.

I can't be alone in this matter of thinking? Care to share your thoughts?