NATIONAL DEBATE ON CONSENSUS BUILDING IN BANGLADESH: ISSUES AND APPROACHES

This article examines the critical national debate on consensus-building in Bangladesh, a topic of major importance following the turbulent political events of the mid-1990s. It analyzes the deep-seated political polarization and the confrontational "winner-take-all" political culture that had come to characterize the country's new democracy. The study identifies the key issues on which a national consensus was deemed essential for stability and development, such as the basic principles of the constitution, the neutrality of state institutions, and the rules of electoral competition. The research explores the various approaches to consensus-building that were being proposed by civil society, intellectuals, and the business community. These included formal institutional mechanisms for dialogue, pacts between the major political parties, and a greater role for the parliament as a forum for debate and compromise. The paper argues that the failure to build a minimum consensus on the fundamental rules of the political game posed the single greatest threat to the survival of democracy in Bangladesh.

The transition to democracy in Bangladesh in 1991 was followed by a period of intense and often-destructive political polarization between the two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP. This paper analyzes the national debate that emerged in response to this crisis, a debate centered on the urgent need for "consensus-building." The study begins by diagnosing the problem, describing the political culture of zero-sum politics, mutual mistrust, and the frequent resort to street agitation (hartals) instead of parliamentary debate. The core of the article is an examination of the key areas where a national consensus was seen as vital. The first and most critical was the need for an agreement on a neutral caretaker government system to oversee free and fair elections, an issue that had become the central point of political conflict. The second was the need to depoliticize key state institutions, such as the bureaucracy, the police, and the judiciary, to ensure their neutrality and professionalism. The third was the need for a basic consensus on the long-term economic and foreign policy direction of the country. The paper then reviews the various approaches being advocated to achieve this consensus, from formal, structured dialogues facilitated by eminent citizens to informal pact-making between the party leaders. The findings reveal a widespread recognition across society of the problem, but a profound inability of the political elite to overcome their personal and partisan rivalries to forge the necessary compromises, leaving the future of the country's democracy in a precarious state.