Mostafa Kamal Majumder
The rift over mode of holding the forthcoming general elections has brought the nation to the brink of deadly confrontation across the country. Apparently the contending parties are not buzzing an inch from their respective positions. Of late the unscheduled telephonic conversation that resulted from a call made by the Prime Minister to invite the Leader of the Opposition for dialogue has pointlessly become the talking point for many.The discomfort felt not only by concerned citizens but also Bangladesh’s development partners observing the inability of the leadership to come to a mutually acceptable solution has deepened the despair. Following some activities by the Dhaka-based diplomats of friendly countries to help steer clear of the deadlock, the secretary general of the United Nations Ban ki moon has issued yet another statement for the creation of an environment for free, fair and inclusive elections.
The bone of contention is whether the election would be held under the incumbent government or a non-party government as had the arrangement since the restoration of democracy in 1991. Thereafter three elections were held under non-party caretaker governments in 1996, 2001 and 2008. All opposition political parties including even some component parties in the AL-led ruling alliance are in favour of holding election under a non-party caretaker government. A strong movement to press the demand has been fomented by the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its allies.
The AL and some of its staunch allies are bent upon holding the election under the supervision of the incumbents, conceding only that they are ready to accommodate opposition nominees from amongst members of Parliament to be in the election-time Cabinet. The chief argument behind this position is the sad experience of 2-year repressive rule of the last caretaker government, declaration of the state of emergency, the minus-two formula, and reign of repression that befell the politicians and business community. But an important thing that is lost sight of here is that the opportunity was created for this by the politicians themselves who preferred not to accommodate each other.
The present situation however is not comparable with that of 2006 when the then opposition started a firm movement against Justice KM Hasan becoming the Chief Adviser of the caretaker government. The BNP government of that time did resign in stipulated time on 27 October 2006. Justice KM Hasan declined to take over as chief adviser seeing the brutalities on the streets that led to the killing of half a dozen political workers in street fighting on the following day. Then President Iajuddin Ahmed formed a caretaker government making himself the chief adviser. The composition of that government had to be changed when four advisers resigned. Opposition agitation however did not stop. But nomination papers had been filed and most candidates started campaigning even before the announcement of a state of emergency that followed the boycott of election by the opposition alliance. After declaration of the state of emergency a new caretaker government headed by Fakhruddin Ahmed took over and ruled the country for the subsequent two years.
This time the government-opposition confrontation has so far been more deadly than any time before. One good sign however is that the opposition has through its recent formula on election-time government clearly shown its interest to work through the Constitution to secure the election under a non-party neutral government. The opposition now demands non-party neutral government to oversee the election. Its shift from the restoration of ‘caretaker government’ is quite significant in this context. The incumbents have offered to accommodate opposition-men in the election-time Cabinet under the sitting Prime Minister. The argument is to uphold the Constitution which, they say, has been amended in line with verdict of the Supreme Court.
The opposition has pointed out that the Supreme Court did in its verdict suggest at least two more general elections under the caretaker system which has not been reflected in the new amendment (15th) passed in the present Parliament. Here the opposition has a point – not only because despite the Supreme Court’s power to decide on constitutionality of any action taken by the executive or the legislature, the apex court cannot assume the power to legislate or run the administration – but also based on the relevant verdict itself. Given the spirit of democracy of running the statecraft with the willing consent of the citizens, the constitutional provision can be changed even in a day. Because it should be abundantly clear that the mode of election proposed by the incumbents as per the provisions of the Constitution does not enjoy the consent of the majority of the parties, to be more precise, majority of the citizens right now.
The opposition claim that change of the caretaker system was neither a declared political objective of the present incumbents nor reflected in their 2008 election manifesto, cannot also be thrown away. Those who were associated with the process of steering the 15th amendment of the Constitution have made no secret of the fact that even AL stalwarts were opposed to doing away with the caretaker system – then a settled issue – and that their high command only wanted to insert two safeguards, restricting a) the tenure of the election-time government to 90 days and b) its functioning to day-to-day administration specifically prohibiting the signing of treaties with foreign countries. If this was the mental position of the incumbents about the caretaker government even before the passage of the amendment, the state of mind of the opposition should have been made even more crystal clear by their parties and leaders. The huge confidence gap thus created even after that needs to be bridged for sustaining the democratic polity. This gap can only be exacerbated by bringing to the fore issues like whether the opposition agreed to withdraw the October 27-29 general strike or not, instead of addressing the core issue of ensuring a visibly free, fair, credible and inclusive election as the UN secretary general has emphasised.
This is not to say that free and fair elections are not possible under the supervision of a political government. But our political culture has not reached the polished stage of people at helms not going beyond their mandate and jurisdictions, and of those in the opposition having confidence that they need not worry about fairness of those in the affairs of the state. It would not be out of place to mention here that the framers of the American Constitution did not leave human frailty or greed to chances and established the system of checks and balances between three organs of the government so much so that even after more than two centuries, President Obama, the most powerful man on earth had to swallow the shutdown of governmental activities for about a month because the Congress did not approve as much borrowing as he needed for his healthcare programme, and the executive branch ran out of money. Informed sources have it that during the shutdown period the movement of even Dan W Mozena, the US ambassador in Dhaka, beyond the confines of his office and residence remained severely restricted.
It can be said that the opposition here does not control any organ of the government to exert such pressure. But this is near impossible for a legislature under the parliamentary system unless there is a hung parliament or a coalition government in office. In situations like ours only the apex court has the chance to make use of its power to pull the brakes. But on the issue of neutral election-time government the apex court took its position first. The House where decisions are taken on political strengths is more than overwhelmingly controlled by the incumbents. Here the political knot has to be opened only politically. One may play to the gallery by asking the opposition to give the government a date on which they would belatedly accept the latter’s invitation for a dinner at Ganobhaban, the Prime Minister’s offocial residence; but it will carry little substance till there is some understanding that the incredible credibility gap would be bridged.
The point here is that the legislature under a parliamentary system is run under the guidance of the executive. Two thirds of members of Parliament have power even to strip the Supreme Court of some of its powers just by adopting a Constitutional amendment. How strong the control of the incumbent executive on the legislature is needs no elaboration as it is backed by votes of nine-tenths of members of the House. The incumbents can utilise this power, if they so want, to restore consensus on the Constitution and pave the way for a peaceful credible election, and earn a permanent respectable place in the minds of the peace and democracy-loving people of the country.
In case of failure to reach a consensus the problems that are being faced now would become more acute with the announcement of the date of election. Election campaigns under present system will not be among equal contestants, but unequal runners – those holding official perks, benefits and protocol and those not enjoying the benefits and privileges. The ministers would have even more power and influence as the administration including law enforcers would remain obliged to maintain their protocol and please them. Influential member of the ruling alliance Rashed Khan Menon MP was at one point, until very recently, very vocal against such electioneering between unequal contestants. The leaders in the government are spelling out what the election-time government would be like as there was no precedent. The Election Commission is facing complexities of tuning its code of election conduct to the realities of those contesting by continuing to hold seats of MPs and positions of ministers. The Representation of the People Order (RPO) amended in Parliament has given the EC an opportunity of escaping some harsh criticisms in establishing two sets of standards for two sets of candidates in the election. But the people are not used to seeing such kind of unequal status of contesting candidates.
The 16 crore people of the country possibly did not deserve to be thrown into such an uncomfortable situation although the adage goes – the people get the kind of leadership they deserve. Through hard work for survival against all odds the people of Bangladesh still hold the promise of surging ahead on the path of progress and prosperity. It is at the cost of immense hardship of poor people who shed sweats for every dollar they earn on foreign soil that Bangladesh has maintained a comfortable position in its balance of payments for the last three decades in a row.
Farmers have steadily contributed to the growth of the economy by increasing grains output which, policy makers claim, have nearly come to the stage of self-sufficiency. Simultaneously with increased production of cereals, they have diversified to production of fruits and vegetables which remain by and large adequate in supply if production is not interrupted by natural hazards. Poor garment workers piloted by energetic entrepreneurs are earning handsome foreign currency, not merely by hard work but even at the cost of their lives at times. Cricketers have made the national flag flutter in mini-screens at homes all over the world. The youths of today travel the globe browsing the Internet and consider sky is the limit for them. Our political leaders should help consolidate their enabling environment, and not fail them.
(Former editor of The New Nation, the writer is the editor of GreenWach Dhaka)
