Mostafa Kamal Majumder
Election Commissioner Shahnewaz has on Tuesday blamed field level government officials for irregularities in Upazila elections. He has been quoted to have cited negligence of the officials to check irregularities for the dismal conduct of the elections, especially of the last two (fourth and fifth) phases. But appropriate actions were not taken against such officials concerned.
If this is the position of one of the election commissioners made known a day after the completion of the five phases of Upazila elections, the satisfaction expressed on the day before by acting Chief Election Commissioner Abdul Mobarak about the fairness and the and the ‘peaceful atmosphere’ of election does not hold good. Five phases of the Upazila elections ended on 31 March.
The news media have almost without exception reported that the Upazila elections had been defaced by capture of election centres and filling of ballot boxes with sealed ballot papers even before the formal start of voting. And in many cases befooling of voters by telling them at polling stations as early as 10 am that voting had been completed has been reported from many upazilas. The accounts of the election observer groups which monitored the elections are no different.
It would be unfortunate if we have to take the statement of acting chief election commissioner as blunt and lacking in accuracy of information. But the ground realities reflected through the statement of Election Commissioner Shahnewaz and the same reported through the media, dangerously point towards that. Were then the acting chief election commissioner’s statements too early and thus premature?
Popular participation and ferocity of contests has traditionally been more in local government elections than in parliamentary elections, because at stake in case of the former are individual, family and group interests plus the propensity to expand or retain land possession and ownership. Thus making comments on the quality of elections in as many as one hundred upazilas or so just at the close of polling in each phase is a daunting task and calls for extreme care. To err is human. But maximum care should have been taken before passing blunt remarks.
Against this backdrop the strong comments made by the Acting Chief Election Commissioner against political leaders, especially BNP chief Begum Khaleda Zia, that they have no right to criticise the Election commission all the year round, and that those throwing a punch should be prepared to take a punch in return, or ‘you are taking part in election under the EC by rubbing your nose on the dotted line’ are nothing but political statements that are not to come from exalted positions of constitutional bodies, to say the least.
May be repeated allegations of lack of impartiality in the conduct of elections angered the Acting Chief Election Commissioner. But the mode of venting his anger by using politically charged words reflects a form of reaction or agitation that does not suit people who are supposed to give decisions or verdicts impartially. Criticism of the Election Commission is not necessarily of any individual or nothing unusual in a democracy. In our situation it has rather become a tradition for the opposition to blame all their electoral failures on the Election Commission. The languages of politicians had in the past been even worse. But none from the EC in the past made blunt responses to such criticisms.
Above all, opposition political parties and their leaders can make statements expressing apprehensions, but those do not turn into official decisions, and are not binding on others who do not toe their lines of politics. But decisions coming from the election commission or such other constitutional bodies are binding on others involved and affect their stakes positively or negatively. Thus people at the helms of constitutional bodies are constrained by their legal, ethical and moral obligations to refrain from making politically charged statements. Because, in the discharge of their responsibilities, they are oath-bound not to be influenced by personal anger or affection, fear or favour. – 02 April 2014
