Holiday, August 16th., 2013
At
a time when the AL led Government was trying its best to convince the
opposition and the nation that it had made the Election Commission (EC)
strong and independent to be able to hold a free and fair parliamentary
elections and that there was no need of the caretaker government (CTG),
the Commission did something astounding. It asked the government to
annul Article 91(E) of the Representation of People’s Order (RPO) under
which the EC had the authority to cancel a candidature in parliamentary
polls for violation of electoral laws. The Chief Election Commissioner
(CEC) faced a surprised and baffled media and baffled them even more
when he stated that the Commission saw no reason to keep Article 91(E)
in the RPO, as it was not “executable”!
Just prior to its decision on Article 91(E), the EC was under
attack from the opposition for a move that it later denied that in the
next general elections, the Prime Minister and 20 Ministers would enjoy
official privileges. There was also another news item that had upset and
angered the BNP; that the EC would give registration to a breakaway
BNP. The BNP called the move a “conspiracy” and warned the EC of a
strong movement against it if the new party was registered. As readers
would recollect, the BNP has legitimate reasons to be suspicious about
such an issue because the previous EC during the Caretaker Government
had encouraged something similar; it had moved to give the reformists
within the BNP the right to represent the party officially, a move that
had failed. Thus, the EC made its strange move with Article 91(E) when
it was under attack from the opposition as weak, incompetent and an
extension of the ruling party.
EC’s kowtow
Further the members of the EC led by the CEC failed to demonstrate
the type of personality that would encourage the nation to have faith in
it; that it had the guts to face the demands of the ruling party. In
fact, some of its moves were blatantly designed to please the ruling
party and its interests. Although there were some outside the ruling
party who were willing to give the EC credit for the city corporation
elections, the recent actions of the EC with the one on Article 91(E) in
particular have eroded all of that. These actions have raised serious
public concern and apprehension whether such a Commission would be able
to see the country through at a pivotal time in its history when holding
a free, fair and inclusive general election is the key to save the
country from slipping into what many suspect a civil war.
It defies both logic and common sense that the EC in such a
predicament would make such a move as it has done with Article 91(E); a
weak EC groping for credibility and under attack from the opposition as
weak and subservient would voluntarily sacrifice formidable power and
return such formidable powers to the government that says it is trying
to make the EC both independent and powerful! At the least, if the wise
members of the Commission were really convinced that there was no need
for keeping something in the RPO that it cannot execute, it should have
held on to for better times. From the standpoint of timing, even if
primary school children were running the EC, they would have shown
better sense. The Chairman who chose to face to the media to explain the
great furor that exploded over this decision was also unable to explain
why the Commission thought that the provision was “in-executable.”
Nevertheless, analysts have tried to explain this strange decision
of the Election Commission to make some sense out of it. There is a
consensus in these analyses that the EC damaged its own standing as an
independent and powerful body. Many analysts have concluded that by the
decision, the EC also damaged the contention of the Government that it
has made the EC a powerful and independent body to enable it to hold
free and fair parliamentary elections under party government and thereby
dismiss the opposition’s demand for such elections under the CTG. Most
analysts have also concluded that the EC consists of individuals who are
weak who prefer to remain weak so they do not upset powerful
politicians who put them where they are now. In fact, the EC by its
action on Article 91(E) has established the BNP’s uncomplimentary views
about it more explicitly than the BNP itself.
Political realities
However, everybody knows the realities in Bangladesh’s politics.
One reality is that the AL led Government did not choose an EC that
would take such a critical decision at such a time without consulting
it. Therefore a better explanation to the EC’s strange decision on
Article 91(E) would be that the Commission took the decision on being
asked or advised by the AL led Government. The humiliating defeats in
the city corporation elections, particularly the one in Gazipur, have
shell shocked its confidence. Therefore, looking into the parliamentary
elections, that the AL wants to win at any cost, it encouraged the EC
towards the strange decision as an insurance policy in the event the
next general elections were to be inclusive with the BNP participating.
In that scenario, the Article 91(E) could be used by the BNP to
challenge the AL candidates on violation of electoral laws.
The former CEC Dr. Shamsul Huda explained this point explicitly. In
an interview to a leading English-language daily, he said: “Article 91
(E) is a great hindrance for any political party that has a plan for
large-scale rigging or fraud, because people will ask EC to use its
authority, which is gained through Article 91 (E). So they are trying to
drop this proposal to make the EC a toothless tiger.” The former CEC,
without accusing the ruling party directly, has looked at Article 91(E)
in the context of history of elections in Bangladesh under party
governments where there have been widespread riggings, the same history
that encouraged the AL to demand the CTG in 1996 that is the reason
behind the BNP’s current demand for the CTG.
The above notwithstanding, one has to share the unfortunate
predicament of the ruling party. It seems like everything it is doing
these days is becoming a political liability. The EC’s decision was no
doubt made with clearance of the government or on its advice to convey
to the people the impression that the ruling party had no intention of
interfering in the parliamentary elections in favour of its candidates
and that it was making the playing field even. Unfortunately, the way
the EC handled it, the result has been the opposite; it has destroyed
people’s faith that this EC would be able to handle a free and fair
national election because it feels more comfortable to get rid of its
powers than to be empowered. The same predicament has befallen the
ruling party with its decision to introduce the son of the Prime
Minister in politics and putting up the billboards to flag for the
people its successes to shore up its fast declining political fortunes.
Both, like the EC’s strange decision, have seriously misfired.
Perhaps, the ruling party is facing the predicament of King Midas
of the fairy tales. Its initiatives that were bringing golden results
not very long ago that had led people to vote it to power with a 3/4th
majority in the last elections is now not working anymore. Perhaps this
is the way politics is; the BNP found this the last time it was in power
and it is the AL’s turn this time to face the same reality. Only, the
present ruling party is messing up everything much more than the BNP did
or for that matter any ruling party in the country’s history.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador.
No comments:
Post a Comment