EC’s decision on 91(E) of RPO helps party government

Holiday, August 16th., 2013

M. Serajul Islam

 

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”!

 

The present Election Commission has been appointed after a search in which late President Zillur Rahman took the initiative to convince the nation that the new Commission would be both independent and neutral. His involvement notwithstanding, the opposition stayed away from the search. The President in consultation with the Awami League and its coalition partners later appointed the new EC. The BNP said repeatedly thereafter that the Commission was not independent and part of the ruling party’s grand scheme to manipulate the parliamentary elections in its favour. It left no one in doubt that it considered the Commission as an extension of the ruling party. 

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.

The billboard controversy Going to the people with achievements as election approaches

Financial Times

Published : Monday, 12 August 2013

M. Serajul Islam

The ruling party leaders were well within their rights to defend the billboards that were placed all over the city of Dhaka highlighting the successes of the government to shore up its political fortunes that are on the decline with national elections round the corner. In a democratic and market economy-oriented country, anyone or any group that can pay money can have any number of billboards at places that are earmarked for billboards. It is however the way and the manner in which these billboards were placed that has raised legitimate concerns and questions in the public mind on the legality and propriety over these billboards.

The Dhaka City authorities regulate the space and give permission for the billboards. Private ad agencies, numbering well over a hundred, hire these spaces from the city authorities and rent it to private businesses. Before these billboards highlighting the performance of the AL led government were placed, the space was occupied by businesses advertising their goods and products. These businesses and ad agencies were the first to feel the adverse consequence of the new billboards. Apparently those who put up these billboards forgot two things. First, they needed permission of the legal owners to bring down the billboards they replaced. Second, the billboards they brought down were rented from the ad companies who had paid for the space to the city authorities.

So clearly, there has been a legal violation of grave nature with these new billboards. However, there is no indication of ownership in these billboards. Nevertheless, it is only natural to assume that either the ruling party or the government or both are the owners of the new billboards that was more than obvious from the way the ruling party leaders defended the right of the AL-led government to put up these ads and the way they taunted the opposition leaders for their criticism of the billboards suggesting that they have done so out of jealousy over the Government's achievements.

Unfortunately, in their eagerness to highlight the Government's performance and taunt the opposition, those who put up the billboards flouted the law in a blatant way and behaved as if they are above the law. In fact, those whose billboards were taken down illegally were afraid even to protest fearing reprisal from the ruling party! By the way these billboards were put up, many are now openly saying the ruling party has shown the same mindset as its student and youth wings that have done literally whatever they have liked to carry out their criminal activities that have earned massive points of unpopularity for it among the people.

That the law was blatantly violated was highlighted by the organisation of the advertisement firms. Office bearers of the organisation told the media that they were not consulted when the ads were taken down to make way for the new ads. They further informed that the businesses that ordered the ads also did not know who took down their ads and why. With Eid ahead, the businesses that had ordered these ads have thus been deprived from getting advertisement for their goods and products at the most opportune time. Many ad agencies affected by the illegal take over of their legal business have said privately to the media that the businesses that had ordered these ads are now reluctant to pay their bills because there is no business there to pay for!

Thus the government that had hoped that the billboards would encourage the people to look at the AL-led government favourably and shore up its declining fortunes after the devastating failures in the city corporation elections and on a number of major issues of governance now finds itself in another damaging controversy. The billboards are outstanding examples of the digitised Bangladesh, as the billboards could be placed overnight that only massive strides in digitisation of advertisement have made it possible. Unfortunately, in the manner the issue was handled, the advancement in digitisation was exposed to the people by the most flagrant disregard for law and legality. In fact, this disregard for law and legality has affected the public mind much more seriously than what has been branded in the advertisement!

Clearly, there is a sense of desperation now gripping the minds of those in leadership position in the ruling party who are looking at the next general elections. In fact, a sense of fear is mixed with their desperation. The desperation and the fear are coming from the fact that the ruling party-backed candidates recently lost the five city corporation elections very badly despite being the better candidates, four of whom who were incumbent Mayors in four city corporations had successfully brought major positive changes in their respective cities. In case of Gazipur, the fear and desperation has been compounded by the fact that the city is considered a bastion of the ruling party in the same league as Gopalgang where the AL could not think of losing even in a nightmare. These losses have been explained as the result of the ruling party's declining fortunes nationally. 

Common sense would dictate that critical decisions are better not taken from fear and desperation. There is no doubt that the ruling party has many achievements. They should have planned their publicity much ahead and done it when they had time and were not in the desperate situation in which they now find themselves. It is not just the city corporation elections that have pushed them into a corner. There are serious questions in the minds of the people over issues of law and order, over Padma Bridge corruption, Hall-Mark, Destiny and share market scams, law and order, lawlessness of the student and youth cadres of the ruling party and failure to push relations with India. The ruling party has not cared to answer these concerns; in fact, instead of acknowledging these concerns as genuine, it has dismissed these with contempt. 

There is thus a sense of anger and frustration in a section of the population who had elected this government with great hope. It is incredible that a party with a history and tradition that it has would opt for billboards and that too in a manner in which it has shown scant respect for the law to offset the deep frustration among the people and believe it would work.

These days nothing that the ruling party is doing is working. In fact, every new act it is undertaking is getting it mired more in political quicksand to which it seems to have stepped. It is time that it took a deep breath and tried to find its way out democratically by going to the people with its achievements not through billboards but through election that would be free, fair and "inclusive". 

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. serajul7@gmail.com

Eid in the Lives of Bangladeshi diplomats

Daily Sun

August 8th., 2013

Palestine-Israel Peace Talks

Daily Sun, August 11th., 2013

DIPU MONI'S NEW DELHI VISIT

 

Dipu Moni’s Delhi trip: Even promises are fading

The Holiday,

2nd August, 2013

M. Serajul Islam

Foreign Minister (FM) Dipu Moni was in New Delhi late last month for a three-day visit. She was invited by New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation for delivering a memorial lecture. However that was not the real reason for her Delhi visit. She had gone there to make a last ditch attempt to urge New Delhi to deliver two stalled deals, namely the Teesta Water Sharing Agreement and the ratification of the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) for exchange of enclaves and land in adverse possession that, if not delivered, could become embarrassing and damaging electoral issues for the ruling party in the next general elections due in January next.

On arrival in New Delhi, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister told newsmen: “If this bill does not go through and if the Teesta water sharing deal is not signed, they will surely become important issues in the rundown to the parliament elections in my country.” To pursue the two deals, she met the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohon Singh, the BJP Leader in Rajya Sabha Arun Jetley and the Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid. The meeting with Dr. Singh did not provide any result to make the Foreign Minister smile. The Indian PM reiterated New Delhi’s commitment to deliver both the deals without mentioning when it would take place. On the Teesta, he told Dipu Moni that the agreement on the Teesta notwithstanding, water was continuing to flow to Bangladesh unhindered; hardly encouraging news for the AL led Government! On delivery of the two deals, even the promises have become weaker.

If her meeting with Dr Manmohon Singh was disappointing; the one with Arun Jetley, the BJP leader in Rajya Sabha was disheartening. He informed Dipu Moni that his party understood Bangladesh’s position but the BJP has its own policy on the issue based on which it would decide the ratification issue. BJP is strongly opposed to ceding any Indian territory, however small, to another country and the LBA, if ratified will give Bangladesh an additional 10,050.61 acres in the exchange. Further, the BJP believes that 20 million Bangladeshis are illegally staying in India. BJP wants this issue to be resolved before the LBA ratification can be discussed that makes the LBA deal most uncertain. Dipu Moni did not attempt to meet the mercurial Chief Minister of Paschim Bangla, Mamata Banarjee who holds the key to the Teesta deal. She could have easily made a trip to Kolkata to meet her either on way to Delhi or on way back. Dhaka still “trusts” New Delhi to convince Mamata Banarjee to agree to the deal.

What Dipu Moni was informed in New Delhi no doubt was bad news for the AL led government. Upon her return to Dhaka, she has however given a positive spin to her visit, stating that Indian leaders have reiterated their commitments to the deals and informed her that the process to do the needful are under way. She blamed the opposition for failure to bring the deals to the stage the AL led government has. Her spin appeared to be an afterthought to offset media reports in Bangladesh and India that concluded that the visit was futile and unsuccessful. Kolkata’s Ananda Bazar Patrika has quoted the Foreign Minister as saying after her talks with the Indian leaders that “if the deals are not signed, it will be very frustrating.” 

Hide and seek

There was a clear hint that she was resigned to fate because she did not hear anything from the Indian leaders to give her hope that New Delhi would deliver the deals for the Awami League to use it the forthcoming general elections. When journalists asked to comment on the outcome of the visit, an official of the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi smartly tried to hide its disappointing outcome. He said that as the Foreign Minister’s visit was not official, there was no expectation at all from her visit. 

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not as smart as the officer at the Bangladesh High Commission. In the build up to the visit, Bangladesh Foreign Ministry officials emphasized that the FM would be meeting the Indian Prime Minister, her Indian counterpart and leaders of the BJP to give the impression that her visit, its unofficial status notwithstanding, was intended to expedite and resolve the Teesta and the LBA deals. People were led to believe that the deals were moving towards resolution, only awaiting Dipu Moni’s visit for the final push. In fact, Foreign Ministry sources even did not care to tell the media what would be the subject of the Foreign Minister’s memorial lecture so that focus remained on her real intention for undertaking the visit, to expedite the resolution of the two stalled deals.

The other smart thing that the Foreign Ministry didn’t do was ask its High Commission in New Delhi and Deputy High Commission in Kolkata for status reports on whether BJP and Mamata Banarjee had changed their stance on the stalled issues and New Delhi was close to delivery. If it had, it would have saved the Foreign Minister from going to New Delhi on a wild goose chase. A status report from the High Commission would have informed the Foreign Minister that the BJP’s position had hardened with national elections round the corner. A similar status report from the Deputy High Commission in Kolkata would have informed her that Mamata Banerjee’s stance had also hardened. Just before the FM went to New Delhi, Mamata had stated in Kolkata that for her, the interests of northern Paschim Bangla through which the Teesta flows to Bangladesh, was more important than doing Bangladesh a favour. Ominously, people there are against the Teesta deal. Furthermore, her conflict with the Congress over center-province issues had intensified and with focus on the next elections, she was no longer in any mood to do the Congress a favour.

Professional incompetency

It is a sad reflection on the professional competence of the Foreign Ministry that it did not learn from experience. It had made the same mistake when the Indian Prime Minister visited Dhaka. A routine check at that time with Kolkata’s Bangladesh Deputy High Commission would have informed the AL led government that Mamata Banarjee would not agree to the Teesta deal, something that was public knowledge in Paschim Bangla and New Delhi. She was then in foul mood threatening to bring down the Congress led coalition government by withdrawing the 20 Trinamool members from the Congress led UPA coalition. Further she was contesting for an assembly seat at the time of the Indian Prime Minister’s visit for retaining her position as Chief Minister of Paschim Bangla from a constituency through which the Teesta flows to Bangladesh where the voters were opposed to the Teesta deal. 

A similar routine check with the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi would have alerted Dhaka that the additional protocol on the LBA signed during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit was not even worth the value of the paper on which it was signed. Dhaka had welcomed the additional protocol as a significant achievement (after the abrupt withdrawal of the Teesta deal) unaware that the BJP was deadly opposed to ceding Indian territory, however small, to another country. For unexplained reasons New Delhi did not convey this position to Dhaka nor on Mamata Banarjee (in fact New Delhi helped build expectations in Dhaka). That notwithstanding,  Dhaka must accept blame for some extremely shoddy diplomatic way of negotiating on national issues that landed the AL led government in deep trouble with the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. Instead of learning from bad experiences, Dhaka has committed the same diplomatic faux pas with the Foreign Minister’s trip; only this time the party needed good news from New Delhi desperately for shoring up its political fortunes that are fast sinking over a host of issues with national elections in Bangladesh approaching fast.  

Hasina’s courageous steps

Clearly, the FM’s trip was ill advised and speaks of the poor quality of diplomacy by the Foreign Ministry. Dhaka’s shoddy diplomatic performance notwithstanding, New Delhi must share a lot of the blame for the ruling party’s current predicament in domestic politics over its attempts to improve relations with India. It has treated the AL led Government very badly and not so honestly. Sheikh Hasina took the courageous steps at considerable political risks and delivered to India what have been its dreams from Bangladesh, namely a total guarantee for its security concerns and a trial run of the critical land transit with promise to make it permanent for a paradigm shift of Bangladesh-Indian relations even without asking for reciprocity. Therefore, New Delhi should have cautioned Dhaka at a minimum level of friendly gesture from Bangladesh that it should not expect too much out of the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. This time, New Delhi should have advised the Foreign Minister against the visit. 

 A recent IBN/CNN/The Hindu election tracker poll has placed Bangladesh as the country Indians trust most with 48% responding in its favour because of the initiatives of the Al led government, ahead of Russia with 46%. Asked to explain, former Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh Dev Mukherjee said that in the last 5 years “Bangladesh has addressed our security concerns very comprehensively whereas in previous regimes, trouble makers were given support.” The former High Commissioner added that there is a sense of guilt in India “because India has not delivered what India should have delivered on and reciprocated, be it on Teesta waters or the land boundary agreement.” It seems that level of competence has not just deteriorated in Bangladesh. A source in the Indian External Affairs Ministry expressed the view that the Foreign Minister’s visit has allowed Dhaka to better understand New Delhi’s current predicament over the failure to deliver the deals! 

The FM’s failed trip has put New Delhi on a spot. It has flagged the fact that the failure to deliver the Teesta and LBA to Bangladesh has landed the Awami League at great political desperation underscored by the desperate decision to send the Bangladesh High Commissioner in New Delhi to meet the BJP leader Narendra Modi. Nevertheless, looking into the future, New Delhi should understand that Bangladesh would need encouragement to continue to provide India what it has already given without even being asked , let alone reciprocity. New Delhi should prepare itself so that when there is a new government in Dhaka and another in New Delhi, the two governments could together move ahead in building mutually beneficial bilateral relations where, if there is political will and honesty that Bangladesh has shown and India needs to show, there are huge dividends for both the countries. 

There was one important and positive outcome of Dipu Moni’s New Delhi visit though. She was able to get positive response to the idea of sub-regional cooperation for the management of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basin Regime. The future of Bangladesh-India relations as well as the development of the sub- region could very well be embedded in this Basin Regime.

--------------------------------

The writer is a retired career Ambassador.

Foreign Minister New Delhi Viist

HomeFIRST PAGELAST PAGEPOLITICS & POLICIESEDITORIALLETTER TO EDITORSPORTSWORLDVIEWS & REVIEWSSTOCK & CORPORATETRADE & MARKETCOUNTRYVIEWS & OPINIONMETRO Detailed DSE Trading FE Epaper FE ARCHIVE Go

VIEWS & OPINION Next News » ShareThis Facebook Google + Tweet Email Print Dipu Moni's trip to New Delhi:Frustrating outcome Published : Wednesday, 31 July 2013 Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni (left) meets Indian Prime Minister Manmohon Singh in New Delhi on July 26, 2013: There is no time-frame for delivering the deals on Teesta water sharing and land boundary. M. Serajul Islam Foreign Minister Dipu Moni has just returned from a three-day trip to New Delhi that has been described in the media as a last-ditch attempt by the Awami League (AL)-led Government to salvage the Teesta water sharing deal and the ratification of the land boundary agreement (LBA) for exchange of the enclaves and land in adverse possession from which Bangladesh stands to gain an extra amount of land. At the time she was in New Delhi, an IBN-CNN-The Hindu election tracker came out with a survey that revealed interesting information about Bangladesh-India relations. 48 per cent surveyed said they could trust Bangladesh the most beating Russia, with 46 per cent, to the top of the list. When asked for an explanation on why Bangladesh figured on top, former Indian High Commissioner to Dhaka Dev Mukherjee said that in the last five years "Bangladesh has addressed our security concerns very comprehensively whereas in previous regimes, trouble-makers were given support." The former High Commissioner added that there is a sense of guilt in India "because India has not delivered what India should have delivered on and reciprocated, be it on the Teesta waters or the land boundary agreement." It was for that reciprocity that Dipu Moni had gone to New Delhi. The need for reciprocity has become urgent for the AL-led government because New Delhi's failure to deliver the two deals has landed the ruling party in Bangladesh in dire straits politically with general election now just a few months away. Thus immediately upon landing in New Delhi where she went unofficially to deliver a memorial lecture, Dipu Moni told journalists: "If this bill does not go through and if the Teesta water sharing deal is not signed, they will surely become important issues in the rundown to the parliament elections in my country." In pursuance of these urgent objectives, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister met the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohon Singh, and Arun Jetley, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader in Rajya Sabha. She also met the Indian Foreign Minister, Salman Khurshid. After her meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, sources in the Indian Prime Minister's Office (PMO) said informally to the media that Manmohon Singh reiterated New Delhi's commitments on the two issues and it was doing the needful for their resolution. The source added that the Congress-led Government would like to introduce the bill on ratification of LBA in August. The source did not reveal any time-frame for delivering the deals. Dipu Moni's meeting with Arun Jetley also did not raise any sense of optimism. The BJP leader said that his party understood what the Bangladesh Foreign Minister had to say on the LBA but that decision in the matter would be taken in line with the party's policy. For the BJP, the LBA issue is also tied to its stand that there are over 20 million illegal Bangladeshis in India and that this issue would be considered before its decision on supporting the ratification bill. Under the LBA, when ratified, India would have to transfer 17,163.63 acres to Bangladesh against 7,110.02 acres it would get from Bangladesh. The Foreign Minister did not meet the Trinamool's leader Mamata Banerjee who holds the key to the resolution of the Teesta water sharing problem and has left it entirely to New Delhi to convince her. The signs from Kolkata are not encouraging. Dipu Moni had no meeting with the National Security Adviser Shiv Sankhar Menon who has been coordinating the work of all Ministries and agencies in furthering Bangladesh-India relations. Thus on what has been revealed from Indian sources, the two deals do not seem anywhere near resolution in the near future. The BJP is now seriously threatening the Congress for power in the general elections scheduled to be held by early next year. As a nationalist political party that builds its acceptance among voters on India's domination in the region, the fact that the LBA would cede territories to Bangladesh would hardly encourage BJP, so close to election time, to support the ratification that would help Bangladesh gain more Indian territory than it would cede. Then of course there is the issue of '20 million Bangladeshis' that the BJP will surely make an election issue. As for the Teesta deal, Mamata Banarjee has already set sights on New Delhi by building an anti-Congress coalition and there is no chance she would support the Teesta deal now that would help the Congress gain support of voters nationally by projecting itself as the party that deals with its neighbours fairly. Thus while Dipu Moni was in New Delhi, Mamata said that in deciding on the Teesta, she would have to consider the interests of northern Paschimbanga through which the Teesta follows into Bangladesh. The bleak scenario notwithstanding, New Delhi has in recent times been actively pursuing negotiations with the interested parties to deliver to Bangladesh the two deals. On LBA, the Congress-led government has been sensitising everyone through the media with information that although India would cede more territory in the LBA deal, what the ratification would do is just legalise a de facto situation and that even without the ratification, India has already ceded the territories to Bangladesh. The ratification would only show India as a fair neighbour and alleviate sufferings of the people in the enclaves and land under adverse possession. There is news that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina would be visiting New Delhi in September and interested quarters have suggested that the deals would be delivered then. However, going by the results of Dipu Moni's visit and the current political situation in India, the chances of the deals being resolved before the next Indian elections have drifted further. Additionally, New Delhi would also be aware that delivering the deals at this stage would lead to accusations by the opposition in Bangladesh that it was doing so to help the Awami League and thus interfering in Bangladesh's internal affairs. Common sense would dictate New Delhi to hold the deals if they are ready for delivery and give these to Bangladesh after a new government comes to power so that if the BNP forms the next government, it would be encouraged to deal with India for furthering bilateral relations the way these were developed under the AL-led government. If the AL returned, New Delhi would have no problem because of its historically friendly relations with it. One good outcome for the future of Bangladesh-India relations from Dipu Moni's New Delhi visit was the positive response she received from New Delhi on sub-regional cooperation to management of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basin Regime. The waters of the common rivers are depleting. Only a multilateral approach among all the basin countries could augment waters in these rivers and ensure Bangladesh's survival. The multilateral approach would also augment waters for the co-basin countries as well as make the region one of the richest in the world in water resources. India had so long rejected this approach because it thought that by the bilateral approach, it could extract its interests better without caring for its neighbours' interests, including Bangladesh. Although all past Bangladesh governments had tried to get India to agree to this multilateral approach, it is the present one that has succeeded in getting Indian interested in such an approach. This approach could be the best way to carry Bangladesh-India relations forward, country to country and not country to party. At the time of filing this article, Dipu Moni did not give any official media briefing on her visit although the media in Bangladesh has concluded her trip was futile. Kolkata's Ananda Bazar Patrika reported the Foreign Minister as saying that "if the deals are not signed, it will be surely frustrating." The hints are strong though that the Foreign Minister did not return from New Delhi with good news for her party. The writer is a retired career Ambassador and Chairman, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

Prayer for an agreeable general election for Bangladesh

M. Serajul Islam

 

The Prime Minister’s recent announcement that the next general election would be held under the Westminster model confused the country’s most ordinary folks. Perhaps they don’t know that the name Westminster is derived from Westminster Palace, the seat of the British parliament. The British parliamentary system is known as the Westminster system after which parliamentary systems worldwide are modeled. The type of election the Prime Minister wants to hold in Bangladesh is a part of the Westminster type of parliamentary system. If the people knew these facts, they would have liked to request her in bended knees and folded hands to make an exception for the sake of the country and hold the next national election under a ‘un-Westminster’ system instead.

 

Such a request would make sense for a variety of reasons. For one, the Prime Minister wants to follow the Westminster model of election where the country follows little else of the Westminster style democracy. The Westminster system has evolved over centuries as the structure for ensuring and sustaining Great Britain’s democratic governance. The Westminster type election is the icing on the cake of British democracy. Electoral laws and conventions related to holding national elections in UK under this model are sacrosanct that none in the country can violate.

In Bangladesh, the Prime Minister is insisting upon the Westminster-type polls without a democratic system to back it. She is thus insisting upon icing without the cake. Further, she is also forgetting that her party had forced the BNP-led Government in 1996 to reject the Westminster model in favour of the caretaker government (CTG) and that 3 elections were held under this un-Westminster type election through which the people have voted freely and fairly and the party they favoured went to power. Furthermore, her party used its 3/4th majority in the current parliament to reject the CTG for the Westminster model only when it no longer served its interests against the wishes of the main opposition political party, the BNP.

 

Change of heart

In rejecting the Westminster model for the CTG and now rejecting the CTG for the Westminster model again, the Prime Minister has failed to grasp what makes the Westminster model work for sustaining democracy. The Westminster model takes for granted two fundamental elements in the process of holding elections. First, voters must be free to elect the party of their choice based on universal adult franchise. Second, political parties must be assured beyond an iota of doubt a fair and level playing ground where they not only enjoy equal rights and opportunities; the question of any party even considering anything to the contrary must be eliminated by laws, customs and conventions. In the Westminster model a political party can’t even dream of being forcibly kept out from contesting by the party in power.

 

In Bangladesh, the absence of what makes the Westminster model work–laws, customs and conventions related to elections - has been established twice already; once by the AL and now by the BNP. In 1991-96, the Awami League demanded a un-Westminster like election because it did not trust that a Westminster model would work with Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia as the head of the Interim Government. Now the BNP is opposing the model because of the same reason; it does not trust it would work under Sheikh Hasina. If the Prime Minister spared a moment and considered what motivated her and her party to bring governance to a halt by over 170 days of hartal for establishing the CTG in place of the Westminster model, she is no doubt understand the BNP’s insistence for the CTG.

 

The issue here of course is a simple one: a matter of trust. In UK, the Westminster model works because trust is the basis in relationship among the political parties; a matter taken for granted. In Bangladesh, we must have a un-Westminster type election because trust doesn’t exist between the ruling party and the opposition. In Great Britain, the voters rejected Sir Winston Churchill in the 1946 elections because they were concerned that he had been allowed too much power during the war to head a democratic government after the war was over. They voted the Labour Party under Clement Atlee.

 

Nevertheless, the British are wise by experience and cultured by history and tradition and as a nation not ungrateful. They thus voted Sir Winston back to power in 1951 after a term of Clement Atlee to express their gratitude for his war efforts. Sir Winston eventually retired from politics in 1955 while still in power. On his departure, his parliamentary colleagues wanted to build a bust for him in recognition of his contribution to the war efforts in the premises of Westminster. Sir Winston said he could accept the honour if one was built for the leader of the opposition Earl Atlee too who he thought had made equal contribution to the British Government’s war efforts! Although political rivals, each respected the other to a fault! The point is simple: in the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, in addition to trust between the party in power and the opposition, there is respect between the two. In the British parliamentary system, government comprises the party in power and the opposition. This is why in the British parliamentary system the opposition is called Her Majesty’s opposition!

 

The element of trust upon which the British parliamentary system is based of which the Westminster model of election is a part has deteriorated substantially in the Bangladesh context between 1996 and now that makes the BNP’s demand for the CTG more acceptable today than when the AL had demanded it to replace the Westminster model. In 1991-96, the Prime Minister (then Leader of the Opposition) did not believe the country could have fair and free elections with Khaleda Zia as head of the Interim Government. She did not trust Begum Zia. The Prime Minister should know better why Begum Zia today does not trust her now. The deterioration in the quality of politics apart, the Prime Minister could consider the way she has made it a habit to speak of the leader of the opposition in public to better understand why the opposition has little trust in her to head the Interim Government.

 

On a less personal level, after claiming that the local government elections were free and fair to dismiss the opposition’s demand for the CTG, the Prime Minister said in public that the voters have elected corrupt and terrorist elements! Thus one really cannot blame the BNP as a political party for feeling that they cannot have a fair deal with the Prime Minister heading the Interim Government.

 

No love lost

It is now a fact that everybody acknowledges that there is no love lost between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister in particular should know this better because she just cannot mention Begum Khaleda Zia’s name without words that speak for themselves. Even her body language changes when she speaks of her in public. Begum Khaleda Zia also has shown publicly that her feelings for her nemesis are no better; but to give credit where it is due, she does not insult her adversary in the manner the PM does. Therefore, if there was any element of necessity for accepting the CTG when the AL had demanded it in 1991-96 based on the lack of trust, that trust has further deteriorated thus the BNP’s demand for CTG today is more acceptable than in 1991-96.

 

Meanwhile, the public has sent its message to the ruling party on the issue quite clearly. Thanks to the modernisation of the IT, most newspapers today have online versions of their papers and carry online polls all the time. In these polls, one favorite question is on the CTG issue. The public responses were overwhelmingly in favour of the CTG system. The most widely-read daily Prothom Alo carried a survey on the issue. Ninety percent people responded in favour of the CTG!

 

The recently concluded city corporation elections were fought on national issues. The CTG issue became prominent and the BNP candidates won comprehensively. This has added force to BNP demand for CTG. In fact, with the BNP substantially strengthened by the city corporation victories and it will not be a push over if the government moves ahead and attempts to introduce Westminster model of elections for Bangladesh. But astute political analysts say that it would be a prescription to push Bangladesh to the edge and perhaps a green signal to the extra-constitutional forces to step in.

 

In fact, the Prime Minister’s sudden emphasis of the Westminster model was made when she was on a recent visit to London has, in fact, highlighted the inadequacies in Bangladesh for such a system. It brought to focus the serious imperfections in Bangladesh’s politics to adopt the Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, Bangladesh has to find and fast, a compromise between the Westminster model and the CTG-based on realities in Bangladesh’s politics for its survival.

 

Compromise a must

The AL and the BNP must come to a compromise. As the ruling party, the ball is in the AL’s court. The BNP has made it clear it would not participate in the next national election with Sheikh Hasina heading an Interim Government as Hasina did in 1996. Thus the ruling party should take a serious look at the current nature of politics and help the country move forward based on its own history and politics.

 

There is no alternative to an “inclusive” national election. To begin with politicians must agree to have someone other than the incumbent PM to head the Interim Government to assure BNP’s participation. If the Prime Minister is willing to make this courageous move, she could then demand a few concessions from the BNP. She could as the outgoing PM nominate someone from amongst the elected members of the outgoing Parliament from her party as the Prime Minister of the Interim Government after consultation with the Opposition. That would satisfy the AL contention that unelected people cannot elect a democratic government. To further that contention, the two parties could then decide to share the 10 Ministers (could be increased if necessary) between them from among the MPs and BNP could be offered to chose the Ministries for the concession it gave. The Jatiya Party too could be given a share in the Interim Government.

Bangladesh is at a historical cross road. A recent World Bank report on the country’s economy has indicated that in the last one decade, between 2001 and 2010, it has made significant progress in areas of economic development and poverty alleviation. The GDP growth rate has averaged over 5%. The decade has been shared 5 years by the BNP (2001-2006), two years by the last CTG (2007-2008) and 3 years by the AL (2008-2010). Although politics has been far from being helpful for unhindered socio-economic development, it was not as threatening as it has become since 2010. Dark clouds have gathered in the horizon threatening not only to ruin the country’s socio-economic development but to push it into protracted clashes and civil disturbances that could be the beginning of a long winter of discontent.

 

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

Prayer for an un-Westminster type of general election for Bangladesh

Published in the Weekly Holiday

M. Serajul Islam

The Prime Minister’s recent announcement that the next general election would be held under the Westminster model confused most ordinary folks of the country. They did not know that the name Westminster is derived from Westminster Palace, the seat of the British parliament for which the British parliamentary system is also known as the Westminster system after which most parliamentary systems worldwide are modeled.  The type of election the Prime Minister wants to hold in Bangladesh is a part of the Westminster type of parliamentary system.  If the people knew these facts, they would have liked to request her in bended knees and folded hands to make an exception for the sake of the country and hold the next national election under a un-Westminster system instead.

Such a request would make sense for a wide array of reasons. For one, the Prime Minister wants to follow the Westminster model of election where the country follows little else of the Westminster parliamentary system.  The Westminster system has evolved over centuries as the structure for ensuring and sustaining Great Britain’s democratic governance. The Westminster type election is the icing on the cake of British democracy. Electoral laws and customs/conventions related to holding national elections in Great Britain under the Westminster model are sacrosanct that no power in the country can violate.

 In Bangladesh, the Prime Minister is insisting upon the Westminster model election without democracy to back it. She is thus insisting upon the icing without the cake. Further, she is also forgetting that her party had forced the BNP led Government in 1996 to reject the Westminster model in favour of the caretaker government (CTG) and that 3 elections have been held under this un-Westminster type election through which the people have voted freely and fairly and  the party they favoured  went to power. Furthermore, her party used its 3/4^th majority in the current parliament to reject the CTG for the Westminster model only when it no longer served its interests against the wishes of the main opposition political party, the BNP.

In rejecting the Westminster model for the CTG and now rejecting the CTG for the Westminster model again, the Prime Minister has failed to grasp what makes the Westminster model work for sustaining democracy. The Westminster model takes for granted two fundamental elements in the process of holding elections.  First, voters must be free to elect the party of their choice based on universal adult franchise. Second, political parties must be assured beyond an iota of doubt a fair and level playing ground where  they all  not only enjoy equal rights and  opportunities; the question of any party even considering anything to the contrary must be eliminated by laws, customs and conventions. In the Westminster model a political party simply cannot feel that it is being forcibly kept out from contesting by the party in power; not even in a nightmare.

In Bangladesh, the absence of what makes the Westminster model work –laws, customs/conventions related to elections -  has been established twice already; once by the AL and now by the BNP. In 1991-96, the Awami League demanded a un-Westminster like election because it did not trust that a Westminster model would work with Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia as the head of the Interim Government. Now the BNP is opposing the Westminster model because of the same reason; it does not trust the Westminster model would work under Sheikh Hasina. If the Prime Minister spared a moment and considered what motivated her and her party to bring governance to a halt by over 170 days of hartal for establishing the CTG in place of the Westminster model, she would no doubt understand the BNP’s insistence for the CTG.

The issue here of course is a simple one; a matter of trust. In Great Britain, the Westminster model works because trust is the essence of the model in relationship among the political parties; a matter taken for granted. In Bangladesh, we must have a un-Westminster type election because the element of trust between the ruling party and the opposition is non-existent and the possibility of that trust being established in Bangladesh’s politics anytime soon is not even in the realm of possibility. Another slight digression would make the point why a Westminster model cannot work in Bangladesh a little clearer to the readers. In Great Britain, the voters rejected Sir Winston Churchill in the 1946 elections for a number of reasons among which were their concerns that he had been allowed too much power during the war to head a democratic government after the war was over. The voters thus voted the Labour Party under Clement Atlee.

Nevertheless, the British are wise by experience and cultured by history and tradition and as a nation not ungrateful. They thus voted Sir Winston back to power in 1951 after a term of Clement Atlee to express their gratitude for his war efforts. Sir Winston eventually retired from politics in 1955 while still in power. On his departure, his parliamentary colleagues wanted to build a bust for him in recognition of his contribution to the war efforts in the premises of Westminster. Sir Winston said he could accept the honour if one was built for the leader of the opposition Earl Atlee too who he thought had made equal contribution to the British Government’s war efforts! Although political rivals, each respected the other to a fault! The moral of this short digression is a simple one; in the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, in addition to trust between the party in power and the opposition, there is respect between the two. In the British parliamentary system, government comprises the party in power and the  opposition. This is why in the British parliamentary system; the opposition is called Her Majesty’s opposition!

The element of trust upon which the British parliamentary system is based of which the Westminster model of election is a part has deteriorated substantially in the Bangladesh context between 1996 and present that makes the BNP’s demand for the CTG  more  acceptable today than when the AL had demanded it to replace  the Westminster model.  In 1991-96, the Prime Minister (then Leader of the Opposition) did not believe the country could have fair and free elections with Khaleda Zia as head of the Interim Government. She did not trust Begum Zia. The Prime Minister should know better why Begum Zia today does not trust her now. The deterioration in the quality of politics apart, the Prime Minister could consider the way she has made it a habit to speak of the leader of the opposition in public to better understand why the opposition has little trust in her to head the Interim Government .  On a less personal level, after claiming that the local government elections were free and fair to dismiss the opposition’s demand for the CTG, the Prime Minister said in public that the voters have elected corrupt and terrorist elements! Thus one really cannot blame the BNP as a political party for feeling that they cannot have a fair deal with the Prime Minister heading the Interim Government.

It is now a fact that everybody acknowledges that there is no love lost between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister in particular should know this better because she just cannot mention the name of Begum Khaleda Zia without words that speak for themselves. Even her body language changes when she speaks of her in public. Begum Khaleda Zia also has shown publicly that her feelings for her nemesis is no better but to give credit where it is due, she does not abuse or insult her adversary the manner her adversary does. Therefore, if there was any element of necessity for accepting the CTG when the AL had demanded it in 1991-96 based on the lack of trust between the two parties,  that trust has deteriorated many tomes for the worse thus making the BNP’s demand for CTG today more acceptable than what the situation was when the AL had demanded it.

There is more to this debate that the Prime Minister has introduced between the Westminster type of election and the CTG, her out of context representation of the system notwithstanding. The public has sent the message to the ruling party on the issue quite clearly. Thanks to the advancement these days in the IT sector, most newspapers today have online versions of their papers. These papers carry online polls all the time. In these polls, one favorite question is on the CTG issue. Without fail, public responses have been overwhelmingly in favour of the CTG system. One of these papers, the most widely read Prothom Alo carried a survey on the issue. 90% people responded in favour of the CTG!

The recently concluded city corporation elections were local only in name. It was fought on national issues. Of these issues, one introduced by the BNP was the CTG issue. The BNP candidates won these elections comprehensively. The comprehensive victories of the BNP candidates have added force to their demand for the CTG. In fact, with the BNP substantially strengthened by the city corporation victories and the manner in which they won these victories, it will not be a push over if the government moves ahead and attempts to introduce Westminster model of elections for Bangladesh. It would be an attempt to implement a system for which the country’s politics is simply not prepared. It would by assessment of most political analysts, a prescription to push Bangladesh to the edge and perhaps a green signal to the extra-constitutional forces to step in .

In fact, the Prime Minister’s sudden emphasis of the Westminster model made while she was on a recent visit to Great Britain has highlighted the inadequacies in Bangladesh for such a system. It brought to focus the serious imperfections in Bangladesh’s politics for following the Westminster type of parliamentary democracy of which the Westminster model of elections is a part. Nevertheless, Bangladesh has to find and fast, a compromise between the Westminster model/ and the CTG based on realities in Bangladesh’s politics for its survival.

The AL and the BNP must come to a compromise. As the party in power, the ball is in the court of the Awami League. The BNP has made it clear it would not participate in the next national election with Sheikh Hasina as the Prime Minister of an Interim Government for the same reasons as she had declined to participate in an interim government to be headed by Begum Khaleda Zia in 1996, only the reasons for BNP not doing so has been strengthened by deterioration in the trust element between the two parties. Thus the ruling party should take a serious look at the current nature of politics and help the country move forward based on its history as the party that helped the country achieve its independence.

There is no alternative to an “inclusive” national election. To achieve that the first step could be to have someone other than the incumbent Prime Minister to head the Interim Government to assure the BNP’s participation. If the Prime Minister is willing to make this courageous move, she could then demand a few concessions from the BNP. She could as the outgoing Prime Minister nominate someone from amongst the elected members of the outgoing Parliament from her party as the Prime Minister of the Interim Government after consultation with the Opposition. That would satisfy the AL contention that unelected people cannot elect a democratic government. To further  that contention, the two parties could then decide to share the 10 Ministers (could be increased if necessary) between them from the parliamentarians where BNP could be given preference in choice of the Ministries having conceded on the issue of the Prime Minister of the Interim Government. Given the Jatiya Party’s number of parliamentarians, it too could be given a share in the distribution of Ministries in the Interim Government.

Bangladesh is at a historical cross road. A recent World Bank report about the country’s economic advancement has indicated that in the last one decade, between 2001 and 2010, the country has made significant progress in areas of economic development and poverty alleviation. The GDP growth rate has averaged over 5%. The decade has been shared 5 years by the BNP (2001-2006), two years by the last CTG (2007-2008) and 3 years by the AL (2008-2010). Although politics has been far from the way required for unhindered socio-economic development, it was not as threatening as it has been since 2010. Dark, threatening clouds have gathered in the horizon that are threatening to not just take away the positive advances in the country’s socio-economic development but to push the country into protracted clashes and civil disturbances that could be the beginning of  a long winter of discontent.

National elections, models apart, are for betterment of a country. Unfortunately, the thought of the next national election in Bangladesh without the opposition brings with it grave foreboding. The ruling party must consider that the conditions of holding a Westminster type of election do not exist in Bangladesh. It must also consider that if the opposition does not participate, such a system of election would be rendered meaningless. If the ruling party ignores these facts and still pushes the country to a Westminster model national election, it will send the country on way to national disaster. Thus the country begs of the ruling party to give the country a un-Westminster type election and wait for politics to improve for introducing such a system in Bangladesh. It may help the ruling party to do the right thing if it considers that Great Britain achieved the Westminster model of election by perfecting the Westminster type of parliamentary democracy that took it a very long time. Westminster model election without Westminster style democracy would be like putting the cart before the horse.  

The writer is a retired career Ambassador