Oli Ahmad’s shift: From BNP foe to Jamaat ally
Graphics: Agamir Somoy
Jamaat-e-Islami-led 11-party alliance announced Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Chairman Col (retd) Oli Ahmad as their candidate for the post of president. It may seem surprising because Oli has consistently maintained an anti-Jamaat stance throughout his political career.
However, a close observation of Bangladesh’s “power politics” reveals that survival and securing benefits often become more important than principles or ideology.
Oli was a close colleague of former president Ziaur Rahman and possesses a distinct reputation as a freedom fighter of the Liberation War.
Later, his position in BNP politics shrank, and his intense disagreements with Jamaat played a significant role in that decline. His conflict with the BNP reached its peak following a nomination dispute with a Jamaat candidate for the Chattogram-14 seat during the 2001 national elections.
Although the Four-Party Alliance formed the government after winning the election, Oli was sidelined and not given a full ministry.
In 2006, he resigned from the BNP to form the LDP and was also briefly associated with former president AQM Badruddoza Chowdhury’s Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh (BDB). After leaving the BNP, he launched severe verbal attacks against former prime minister Khaleda Zia and Tarique Rahman.
He even made the controversial remark, “If the mother is bad, how can the son be good?” which became a major headline in the newspapers at the time. Following such statements, no path remained open for his return to BNP politics.
Most politicians in our country want to remain relevant in politics until death; they do not easily want to give up the taste of power. Oli may have thought that since Jamaat’s current momentum or “market” is favorable, joining their alliance or fighting with their support could be politically profitable for his survival.
On the other hand, when a party like Jamaat, which played a controversial role in the Liberation War, nominates a decorated freedom fighter like Oli instead of its own leader, a subtle strategy and narrative politics are at work.
They intend to send a confusing message to the people that they are not an anti-liberation force. However, both Jamaat and Oli know very well that they have no chance of winning the electoral battle. In reality, the entire matter is nothing more than a form of political “mockery” or a farce.
Yet, the post of president is a symbol of state guardianship and decorative unity. According to the Constitution, although this post has no special executive power, the president can play a neutral and guardian-like role during a national political crisis.
For that reason, there should be universal respect for this designation and it is desirable to have a unanimous national consensus rather than an election. Avoiding an election in this reality would have been beneficial for the country’s politics.
BNP has nominated Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir for the presidency. Among the few politicians in Bangladesh who have a reputation as a “gentleman,” Fakhrul is undoubtedly one of the prominent ones.
If there is no party ego, it is desirable that other political parties have no objection or reservation regarding him. BNP should have presented him as a “consensus candidate” or a unanimous candidate through dialogue and discussion with all other parties.
At the same time, it should have been ensured that upon assuming the presidency, he would act as a true guardian of the state rather than being loyal to any party. Such a positive initiative or approach could have been acceptable to everyone.
However, when Jamaat fields a separate candidate without such dialogue or understanding, it must be understood that they are practicing the politics of opposition only for the sake of opposing.
Our history of parliamentary democracy shows that, with the exception of a few like Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, most presidents have been loyal to a particular party and were opportunists.
Whenever a party sycophant is placed in the position, the dignity of the president is tarnished, and the people cannot accept him as a guardian.
Since the victory of Fakhrul is certain due to the two-thirds majority in the National Parliament, the candidacy of Jamaat and Oli is merely a form of political opportunism.
As a result, what will happen in politics is that Oli’s tone toward Jamaat will soften because he joined them, while Jamaat will gain the opportunity to maintain their political image and a soft tone by using well-known freedom fighters like him.
Sacrificing principles and ideology just to survive in politics further stains the political culture.
The writer is a researcher and political analyst.
