The response from the National Citizen Party’s (NCP’s) secretary of the manifesto subcommittee, Istiak Akib, to my analysis of their manifesto is a welcome development and a positive step towards fostering civilised dialogue—an essential element of democracy. It is also reassuring to see that good sense still prevails among aspiring young political actors who seek to bring fresh air into politics, rather than unleashing social media mobs. I must admit that, after reading the response, I went back and reread the manifesto more carefully and critically.
In his rejoinder, Istiak Akib accuses me of misreading the manifesto and lacking diligence, questioning whether I had even read the 36 points, let alone the entire document. He challenges my critique regarding the NCP programme’s lack of inclusivity and the robustness of its proposed economic planning. Specifically, he alleges that by stating, “None of the NCP’s 36 pledges address the concerns of religious minorities or ethnic communities, including Adivasis,” I ignored what he describes as an “explicit and actionable pledge,” which he insists is “not a vague commitment to harmony.” He cites the third point of the 36-point manifesto, which states: “A special cell with the authority to conduct independent investigations will be created under the Human Rights Commission to prevent any discriminatory acts, persecution, or oppression based on religious hatred, communalism, minority oppression, or ethnic identity.”
If a party believes that merely stating that the Human Rights Commission will take special measures to investigate and remedy the persecution and oppression of minorities is sufficient to make its manifesto “inclusive,” then we will indeed have to relearn politics altogether. The very mandate of the Human Rights Commission is to investigate violations of the human rights of all citizens—regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity—and to ensure redress. It is not meant to wait for the intervention or directives of any political party. Moreover, if a system is introduced whereby the commission forms special cells or initiates investigations at the behest of the ruling party, it would cease to be independent and instead become subservient to the government. Is that what the NCP is suggesting?
My emphasis on inclusion clearly stated that “these groups have long demanded equality, fairness, and respect for their rights, faiths, cultures, and ways of life.” Against that backdrop, it is difficult to accept that the insertion of a single paragraph in an 84-page manifesto on the Chittagong Hill Tracts—one that vaguely refers to participation in decision-making without any clear commitments regarding the protection of ways of life, faiths, land rights, or the implementation of unfulfilled promises of the Peace Accord—is sufficient. If this is considered adequate, then the intent behind such a tick-box exercise in inclusivity must be questioned.
Upon reviewing the manifesto again, I concede that I did not adequately consider the yearly implementation targets outlined in the document. Initially, I observed that the aim “to reduce inflation to six percent and raise the tax-to-GDP ratio to 12 percent” by the end of a parliamentary term was “both vague and inconsistent.” A closer examination, however, reveals how hollow these targets truly are. The manifesto promises that necessary legal reforms (amendments) will be completed within the first year, despite the well-known reality that parliament will likely spend its first 180 working days functioning as a constituent assembly, significantly limiting its capacity to pass new legislation. Likewise, the plan to increase the number of taxpayers by more than six-fold within five years is so unrealistic that delving deeper into it seems futile. Anyone can examine the record to see how much success the interim government achieved by making TIN mandatory for certain services.
And what explanation has been offered for “decent work”? The manifesto provides figures for creating more than one crore jobs, but offers no clarity on how we are to know that these will not simply be low-wage positions. If these one crore jobs are indeed “decent work,” then why is it unacceptable to describe this plan as more ambitious than the BNP’s promise of one crore jobs? When the BNP unveils its manifesto, we will certainly scrutinise its employment plan to determine whether those jobs are decent or poorly paid, full-time or seasonal, and so forth.
On the issue of lowering the voting age to 16, there was no criticism in my analysis; rather, I called for clarity. This clarity is necessary because of the proposed establishment of an elected youth council. If young people are able to represent themselves directly in parliament, then the creation of a parallel representative body could generate unnecessary tension and conflict.
Overall, my assessment of the NCP manifesto acknowledged that its special focus on young people was predictable, given that the party was organised and launched by young activists who led the July uprising that ousted an autocratic regime. Once again, I reiterate that the NCP deserves appreciation for being the first party to unveil its manifesto ahead of the February 12 election.
(Published in The Daily Star on February 5, 2026.)
মন্তব্যসমূহ
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন