Politics is the driving force of a country. Free political practice advances democracy and helps the state flourish, and diversity of opinions and paths is the beauty of democracy. However, excessive politicisation of everything harms a nation: it divides people and obstructs development.
Every state has certain areas that must remain above politics, applicable to all, regardless of which party is in power.
These are fundamental matters of the state that should be kept outside partisan politics, such as business and commerce, education, and healthcare.
In the United States, regardless of who becomes president, core policies – such as the US stance towards Israel – do not change. Donald Trump was a fierce critic of Joe Biden, and after coming to power he scrapped Biden’s climate policies, withdrew from the World Health Organization, and stirred global controversy by imposing tariffs on various countries.
Nonetheless, he maintained Biden’s China policy, sanctions against Russia, and support for Israel. Trump did not overhaul the fundamentals of the US economy, nor did he obstruct the businesses of large corporations that regularly fund the Democratic Party.
He did not file cases to silence anti-Trump media outlets like The New York Times or CNN, nor did he use lawsuits to intimidate Hollywood celebrities who mocked him. He also did not refuse to host the FIFA World Cup on political pretexts, despite the previous administration having secured hosting rights.
Donald Trump is considered one of the most aggressive presidents in US history and did change several policies, but he did not tear everything down to impose an entirely new order on the state.
Leaving aside the United States, in the United Kingdom a change of government does not mean abolishing everything done by the previous administration. In India’s long democratic journey, changes to core state policies have been rare. Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist economic model was transformed when Manmohan Singh, as finance minister, ushered India into a free-market economy, and Narendra Modi did not reverse this. Instead, he strengthened the private sector further. Nehru had built strong ties with the Soviet Union, and although the Soviet Union no longer exists, India remains a trusted friend of Russia. Even after Trump imposed harsh tariffs, Modi did not sever ties with Russia. On Russia policy and Kashmir, differences among India’s political parties are minimal, and issues such as the economy, education, and sports are consistently kept outside partisan politics.
These examples come from countries where democracy is well institutionalised. However, even in countries where democracy is considered weak or fragile, many national interests are kept above politics. Thailand changes governments frequently, but such transitions do not harm the private sector. Business owners and industrial entrepreneurs are not harassed as “collaborators” of previous governments, and no factory is set on fire because its owner was close to a former administration. The captain of Thailand’s national football team was not banned or sued for being a staunch supporter of Thaksin; instead, he retained his captaincy. One might argue that Thailand is more developed or better educated, or that its changes of government were driven by the military rather than popular uprisings. But what about Sri Lanka and Nepal, where governments changed through mass movements?
After Sri Lanka’s popular uprising, the interim government worked closely with businesspeople, investors, and industrial entrepreneurs to revive the economy. The country’s central bank governor called upon private-sector entrepreneurs to attract foreign investment, and the government and private sector worked together to rebuild foreign exchange reserves. Sri Lanka kept education, sports, and cultural activities away from politics while reforming the state. After Nepal’s popular uprising as well, steps were taken to ensure that these aspects of society continued normally.
In this regard, Bangladesh is an exception. Here, with every change of government, everything is altered. Everything is turned upside down, from education policy to healthcare, from sports to cultural practice. The Ershad government introduced the upazila system to bring government services closer to the people; the next government abolished it, increasing public suffering, only to reintroduce it later. President Ziaur Rahman initiated the canal-digging programme, which greatly benefited ordinary people, especially farmers, but a subsequent government discontinued it. Today, Dhaka floods after light rainfall because canals have been filled in; had the programme continued, waterlogging could have been easily prevented.
Every government in Bangladesh has introduced a new education policy and scrapped the previous one. In 54 years of independence, the nation has had five education policies, leaving this vital sector directionless. Each ruling party installs its supporters to lead sports organisations, turning them into rehabilitation centres for political activists rather than platforms for experts or former athletes. The same happens with chambers of commerce and industry, where “our people” are installed in leadership. During the Awami League era, the president of FBCCI was someone with no notable business credentials, elevated solely due to family ties with the then prime minister and a powerful party leader.
Every party in power seeks to make its people wealthy overnight, creating opportunities through tenders and influence-peddling. Genuine entrepreneurs and businesspeople become hostages to those in power, and doing business without political patronage becomes nearly impossible. Many politicians seek shortcuts to wealth, politicising business and commerce and dividing entrepreneurs into “our people” and “their people”. When a government falls, a witch-hunt for “collaborators” begins without considering why, and under what circumstances, businesspeople had to engage with the government. Industries are put at risk, thousands of employees face uncertainty, and the economy grinds to a halt, hurting the entire nation.
This vicious cycle traps our private sector and prevents us from achieving our vast potential. Excessive politicisation permeates not only industry and commerce but all spheres of society. One cannot become a vice-chancellor of a public university without being close to those in power; loyalty is valued over scholarship. Distinguished academics like Sirajul Islam Chowdhury are sidelined, while spineless sycophants rise. During the Awami League era, this became epidemic, as party cadres were appointed as teachers instead of meritorious candidates.
Beyond academia, doctors receive favourable postings based on party affiliation, while dedicated but non-political physicians are neglected. The toxic spread of politicisation affects culture as well, with those loyal to the ruling party dominating the spotlight regardless of talent or popularity.
From bureaucrats to doctors, teachers to journalists, professionals are divided along party lines. Politicians compel professionals to engage in politics to remain in or gain power. This must end. Politicisation is creating divisions in business, education, culture, and the bureaucracy, damaging these professions and obstructing national development.
A businessperson has no political identity. For the sake of national interest, entrepreneurs and industrialists must maintain good relations with whichever government is in power – this is respect for a constitutional institution, not allegiance to a party. They must be protected from future harassment for doing so.
On 12 February, a national parliamentary election will be held, and a new government will take office. The public expects all participating political parties to keep critical sectors above politics. Only if these areas are managed free from partisan influence and in the national interest will the country move far ahead.
Audite Karim is a writer and playwright. Email: [email protected]
