M. Serajul Islam
The Prime Minister's statement during her recent trip to New York
that the door for the Caretaker Government is closed is not good news for those
who are praying that for the sake of the country, she would relent. Before this
statement, she had said in the parliament that after the completion of the term
of the current parliament, she will ask the President to announce the date of
the elections and name a head of the interim administration.
That statement had raised hope that she might meet the opposition on
neutral ground for its participation in the next general elections. That hope has
been dashed by the Prime Minister’s statement in New York enhancing fears in
the public mind for a number of reasons. The political situation is now more
conflict ridden than what it was in the final days of the first BNP government
when the AL had brought the country to a standstill with the lagatar hartals
and civil disturbances to make the CG system a part of the constitution. Further,
the present AL led government has made a mess of governance leading to a great
deal of dissatisfaction among the people. The Awami League is now not the main
dominant political force in the country. Therefore if it attempts to impose its
will upon the country on the issue of the next general elections, it will only
succeed in pushing the country into civil disturbances that will be dangerous
and destructive.
The Prime Minister has stressed on the need for holding the next
elections under elected government for sake of democracy. She has said that an
unelected government cannot bring democracy; that it paves the way for extra
constitutional forces into politics instead. These arguments do not stand to
scrutiny. Once the parliament is dissolved as the Prime Minister has now said
it will, there will in fact be no elected politicians in the country.
Therefore, whatever the shape of the interim government, it will be comprised
of and led by unelected people. Even if Sheikh Hasina herself heads the interim
government, she too will be an unelected person once the parliament is
dissolved.
Her argument that holding elections her way will help democracy is
also fallacious. It will, for instance, not bring the opposition to the polls.
The opposition’s strength among the people is by no means any less than that of
the ruling party. With the failure of the government in delivering on the key
electoral promises, independent analysts feel that the position and popularity
of the ruling party has weakened substantially. Even when the ruling party won
its massive victory in the last elections, it had polled less than the majority
of the votes. Therefore an election boycotted by the opposition will simply not
bring democracy no matter what the ruling party thinks of their reasons of the boycott.
The Awami League should also look a little more carefully at the
last caretaker government and beyond to see how justified it is to raise the fear of the
extra-constitutional powers as a threat to democracy particularly at what the
Prime Minister had said about the extra-constitutional forces that were the
real power during the last caretaker government. She had said once in power she
will legitimize all the actions of the military. In fact, she had also said
that 1/11 that ushered the military into politics, was the fruit of their
democratic struggle! Further, the Awami League has already brought amendments
into the constitution to put the fear necessary for the military to refrain
from any thoughts of taking over political power.
To make matters worse for the ruling party, the Supreme Court's
judgment on the annulment of the 13th amendment upon which the Prime
Minister is bidding good bye to the caretaker government did not have a smooth
entry into politics. That judgment took a long time in the making. Justice
Khairul Huq, who chaired the 7 judges' bench for hearing the 13th
amendment case, signed the final judgment 16 months after he retired as the
Chief Justice just a day after writing the
short judgment that annulled the 13th amendment that set the issue against the CG
rolling. The ruling party used the short judgment and its 3/4th majority in
parliament to end the caretaker system. A simple but very legal question has
been raised whether a retired Chief Justice who has the legal authority to
write the full judgment. Further, there are other issues that are also
troubling the minds of the public.
One troubling issue is whether a divided judgment with 4 judges in
favour and three against on a fundamental constitutional issue should be
implemented where the two mainstream parties are sharply divided. The
dissenting judges did not see anything unconstitutional or undemocratic in the
unelected Caretaker system. They said that existing constitutional provision even without the 13th amendment allows
the outgoing cabinet to remain in power for 90 days as the unelected body to
run the country till a new elected
government is formed after dissolution of the outgoing parliament and election
of the new parliament. They also referred to the constitutional provision for
10% unelected Ministers in the Cabinet to argue against the majority decision
that, first, unelected members cannot be a part of a democratic process; and,
second, there is anything wrong constitutionally in the 13t amendment. Also,
when the detailed judgment came out, discrepancies between the detailed one and
the short one 16 months ago also came to light, rendering further controversy
into the judgment.
The Supreme Court’s judgment, instead of resolving the darkening
clouds over the political canvas of the country, has enhanced it. Many had
hoped that while writing the final judgment, the Court will consider the darkening
clouds and write in the judgment that the next two elections must be held under
that caretaker system that in the short judgment it had recommended to the
parliament. It is a pity that they have not done so, more because the
dissenting judges have clearly shown that they could have done it easily by
using existing provisions of the constitution and the conflict between the
ruling party and the opposition has sharpened.
Therefore, the darkening clouds must be dispersed politically
which now throws the country into great uncertainty. Barrister Rafiqul Huq’s
offer to head the caretaker government had raised people’s hopes but the Prime
Minister was quick to pour cold water on it. Thus, the future is not just
uncertain but one with dangerous forebodings. If the Prime Minister wants
democracy to win and the country to survive, she will have no other alternative
but to read the writing clearly on the wall; that the only to save the country
is, first, to hold the next general elections in a manner where it will be
free, fair and neutral and, second, where the opposition will be encouraged to
participate. She will have to decide how to do it. Meanwhile, the nation can
only bend on its knees and pray to the Almighty to show her the light and give
her the wisdom to find answers to the onerous responsibilities that destiny has
placed on her shoulder.
The
writer is a retired Secretary and former
Ambassador
.
No comments:
Post a Comment