PM Hasina wants BNP in JS - But is she serious about her call?

Published in The Daily Independent, July 14, 2009

In her speech in the concluding segment of the budget session, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said something extremely significant for our troubled politics. She urged the opposition to join the Parliament to fight together the conspiracy she believes is being hatched against parliamentary democracy by extra-constitutional forces. She asked the BNP to play a positive role in the House by giving their opinion on various national issues and added that her government would accept their criticism both in the House and outside to strengthen democracy and resist conspiracy by extra constitutional forces at any cost.

The Prime Minister's encouraging words towards the BNP were delivered during her reaction to a report of the Transparency International, Bangladesh in which the TIB was critical about the quorum crisis and misuse of public money in Parliament. The Prime Minister had special words about the TI Chairman about whom she said that his weakness for unconstitutional government is well known as in the past, he served as a Minister in the unelected government of late President Ziaur Rahman.

The Prime Minister's strong words about the TIB were somewhat surprising, as this organisation has been carrying on such activities for quite some time now. Thanks to the TIB's work for its parent organisation Transparency International, we were placed four times in a row, once under the AL and three times under the BNP, as the most corrupt nation on Earth. The TI Report on corruption in Bangladesh was based primarily on reports in newspapers and the media that are often exaggerated. There were many who did not like an organisation of Bangladesh assisting a foreign organisation to give Bangladesh such a bad name, particularly where the reasons that sustain corruption among public servants in Bangladesh, namely unbelievably poor pay would breed the same level of corruption in any government. The TI report on corruption in Bangladesh did our image irreparable damage while serving no purpose at all in tackling corruption.

During the emergency, the role of TIB Chairman was controversial as he appeared in too many TV channels regularly to project the emergency rule as good for the country. He was also seen on TV and in newspaper pictures/reports as a special guest in the ceremony arranged for the release of a book written by the army chief who is now being accused by both sides of the political divide for a variety of serious misdeeds, including violating the constitution and aiding and abetting corruption.
Nevertheless, it has been very encouraging to see that TIB has pushed the PM to a position where she has seen the necessity of extending a hand to the opposition for the sake of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty in Bangladesh. Politically, this statement is the first positive one we have seen in our politics since the emergency ended with the December 29th elections. Sadly, this statement apart, politics in the country is not conducive enough to encourage the BNP to accept the Prime Minister's offer. There is a lot that would need to be done by the Awami League to bring the BNP to the parliament to tackle jointly the conspiracy against parliamentary democracy.

The ball is now in the Prime Minister's court. She should follow up on her offer to the BNP to join the Parliament by relenting on the stalemate over the issue of seating. She should look at her absolute majority and not at what the BNP did the last time to give the latter the extra seats they want. That will take the wind out of the sail of the BNP's negative stance for joining the Parliament. Former Speaker Jamiruddin Sircar's case is becoming a new issue to encourage the opposition to stay away from Parliament. The Parliamentary Committee has found evidence of misuse of funds. The recommendation to scrap the former Speaker of his seat for such allegation is however not within the jurisdiction of the Committee according to the Constitution. Article 66 of the Constitution that specifies the qualifications and disqualifications of a Member of Parliament does not provide for removal of the former Speaker on grounds recommended by the Committee. The Prime Minister must help find a way to deal with it in a way that does not place the treasury and the opposition on a fighting course that will only provide the opposition with further excuse to make the Parliament more dysfunctional.

The Prime Minister has also urged the BNP to play its role outside the parliament as a responsible opposition to criticise the government to make parliamentary democracy stronger. To make this offer meaningful, the Prime Minister must rein in her Ministers and political leaders in the Awami League against provoking the BNP as a habit. Motia Chowdhury's recent allegation that the BNP leader Moudud Ahmed is illegally occupying his residence of last 27 years is a case in point. If the latter is indeed illegally occupying the residence that Moudud has rejected vehemently, the issue is a matter of the law and not one that would fall within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Minister's responsibilities. This sort of statement will only vitiate the political climate and make the Prime Minister's offer towards the BNP meaningless. Some of the other Ministers are regularly appearing before the media to blame the BNP and Jamaat for conspiracies against the government and in some cases, against Bangladesh. It is time that they follow the Prime Minister and seek support of the BNP to fight the conspiracy against parliamentary democracy.

During the emergency, the caretaker government pursued the AL and the BNP with vigour and vindictiveness; incarcerating both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Harsh treatment, in many instances violating human rights, was meted out to the senior leaders of both the parties. The present government has reviewed these cases and has recommended quashing a large number of these cases on the ground that these were politically motivated. Unfortunately, all the cases recommended for quashing are those of the AL leaders. This is surely a move that will create the differences between the two parties to strengthen their history of conflict and lack of trust. This move is also unfair and will not help achieve the cooperation that the PM now seeks for the sake of parliamentary democracy. She should now instruct the Home and Law Ministries to deal with the issue in a non-partisan manner.

Very recently, the Cabinet in principle has approved a draft law entitled "Father of the Nation's Family Members' Security Act 2009." According to the Agriculture Minister, the Prime Minister and her sister would be allocated houses under the law when enacted. While it is true that the sisters are extremely vulnerable from a security point of view and there is little to argue on the security recommended for them, the issue of allocating houses for them raises a few eyebrows because the government has decided to withdraw the house allotted to the BNP leader Khaleda Zia. If the government indeed allocates houses to the sisters, then it should withdraw the move to withdraw the house allocated to Khaleda Zia. Such a step will help create the conditions for bringing the BNP back to the Parliament without which parliamentary democracy will just not work, even if the conspiracy that the Prime Minister apprehends is not there.

In some of her recent political statements, the Prime Minister has given the nation the sense that she perceives correctly the direction in which the government should move for the sake of Bangladesh. The offer to the opposition to come to Parliament to fight the conspiracy against parliamentary democracy is a manifestation of this perception. She now needs to act positively on creating the conditions that would encourage the opposition to take up her offer.

Bangladesh's glorious war of independence was fought for establishment of democracy that cannot be achieved without the government and the opposition cooperating on a common agenda of development. It is not just for establishment of democracy; cooperation between the two is what is holding Bangladesh back from becoming a middle income country. It is also the best guarantee against extra-constitutional interference in our politics.

BNP’s boycott of Parliament and return of negative politics

Published in The Independent, July 5, 2009

In recent times, there has been a series of news and views expressed in the media on the boycott of the BNP in the Budget session of Parliament. These views are critical. Treasury bench parliamentarian Suranjit Sen has suggested recall of the members who abstain from attending parliamentary sessions.

Unfortunately, BNP's boycott of the Parliament is not new. Suranjit Sen should know it better for this trend was set by his party when they were in the opposition when democratic government returned to Bangladesh after Ershad's fall in 1991. BNP obliged by doing the same when the AL was in office between 1996-2001. Awami League continued this trend again when they were in the opposition in 2001-2006.

Boycott of the parliament is unacceptable under any circumstances. In Bangladesh, it is a symptom of what is a much bigger and wider problem in our politics; a negative mindset with which these two parties do politics. We all know that during the five years tenure of the BNP, there was widespread corruption, politicisation of the bureaucracy; criminalisation of politics, and parochialism and narrow mindedness in distributing benefits of governance to those who were not supporters of their party. The Awami League was voted to office with a historical majority, among other reasons, also because of these drawbacks of the BNP and because of the AL pledge to fight these elements. Of course, the voters were also impressed with the other AL promises such as trial of the war criminals and its Vision 2021.

Half a year or 1/10th of the AL's term is already over but most of the reasons for which the people voted them to power have remained promises. In fact, the AL is moving in the same direction that the BNP went with governance. Corruption is gradually but surely finding its way back where the BNP left it. The politicisation of the bureaucracy is entering into a new phase with the largest number of senior bureaucrats being made OSDs in Bangladesh's history to determine their political affiliation. In appointing Ambassadors/High Commissioners in major capitals, professional diplomats have given way to political appointees, the first time professional diplomats have been treated so summarily that even the Foreign Secretary has not found a position. The criminals are back in full force with a slide in the law and order situation that is the cause of concern of everyone now. The trial of the war criminals, promised to be held as soon as the party took office, is still uncertain.

There are a few actions that AL has taken, even if they have gone against BNP, needed to be taken from their point of view, like for instance those related to history. The public understands this. But to clear all cases brought by the ACC against the AL during the emergency as politically motivated and not include even one from the BNP is something that has raised apprehension as to the intent of the ruling party. Then of course there are issues aimed on a personal level that, however correct they may be legally, are politically going to cause dissension and conflict in politics in place of the unity that the country and the government so badly needs.

Although the two mainstream parties never find any issue upon which to cooperate, they do have an eerie sense of cooperation in what is not good for our politics. When one criticises the other while in the opposition, it ends up doing worse regarding those very issues on assuming power. In the present instance, the AL is not allowing BNP the extra seats in the front row of parliament on the plea that the BNP declined a similar request from AL when in power between 2001-2006. While the BNP was in power, it dominated the Parliament by its two third majority and accommodating the AL's extra seats could have easily been done. In the present parliament, the AL has even a larger majority but it is denying the BNP the extra seats to pay back for what they did to the AL. For a political party enjoying such a huge majority, as the BNP did in 2001-2006 and the AL now, it is sadly a reflection of a negative mindset. The BNP has already suffered for this mindset and the AL could be exposing itself to the same fate by following the BNP's footsteps.
A recent study has placed Bangladesh 19th in the list of countries prone to become a failed state. This is unfortunate. In South Asia, two countries are higher on the list, Pakistan at 10th and Sri Lanka at 12th. These two countries have reasons to be placed ahead of us. Bangladesh should fare ahead of all other nations in South Asia because she has all it takes for successful nation building. We are a homogenous and egalitarian nation where religious and/or regional divides have little impact on our politics. We have shown the world what we can do by coming together as we did in 1971. In following the clarion call of Bangobandhu for fighting for our independence, we became a monolithic whole and succeeded in defeating a genocidal army to win our freedom and nationhood.

Unfortunately, we have not been united under a cause ever since. In fact, in the initial years, the politics was one of political assassinations and violence leading to militarisation that was an anathema to the rationale of our war of independence. When democracy returned, we saw the two mainstream political parties fight on issues that have not allowed Bangladesh to achieve the potentials with which we are endowed. Thousands of days were lost on hartal that gained nothing for the country but pushed us higher as a failed state.

The AL should realise that the 19th position we have received in the failed state criterion is not encouraging news to achieve their Vision 2021. The way to achieve this vision is for it to try and revive the spirit of 1971; the spirit of unity. That spirit will never be achieved if it believes that the only way for Bangladesh's development is the Awami League way. Bangladesh's potentials and its development will succeed only when the ruling party can get over this mindset and evolve a bipartisan approach to nation building. It is true that even if the AL tries to achieve unity, the BNP may not be forthcoming. But if the AL makes moves for seeking the BNP's cooperation, the latter will find it difficult to stand in the way of the AL's initiatives for transforming Bangladesh away from the threats of failing as a state.

Time is fast clicking away. The BNP that was in disarray after the elections is consolidating slowly. Unless the AL concentrates on governance and does so on a bipartisan way, it is only a matter of time for violence and conflict to return in our politics. In that event, AL's "Vision 2021" and "Deen Bodoler Pala" could remain merely promises. With little tolerance towards the opposition that is the basis of democracy, the AL can enhance its chances of achieving these promises.
Recently, the British Parliament elected a Speaker. In a Parliament where the Labour Party has a comfortable 66 seats majority, a Conservative has been elected as the Speaker. After his election, the new Speaker John Bercow in a speech said that he would be giving up his party affiliation so that as Speaker he could be impartial as is required by the office. In the present political climate in Bangladesh, we cannot even dare to hope that we could have a Speaker comparable to the British Speaker. But then why can we not hope that the present Speaker of Bangladesh would at least have the courage and common sense to give the BNP the extra seats and get them to the Parliament. He should know better than anybody that a Parliament where the Opposition remains absent cannot be a democratic parliament no matter how much one would like to blame the BNP for the boycott or how correct it would be to do so. If he could muster that courage, he would in fact be doing the AL and Bangladesh a favour and teaching the BNP a lesson for its action when in power.

Indian High Commissioner provokes opposition on Tipaimukh

Published in The Daily Star, July 4, 2009


THE Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka Mr. Pinak Ranjan Chakravarti has taken the centre stage in our volatile politics, albeit for the wrong reasons. He has incurred the wrath of the BNP who has demanded his withdrawal immediately. According to media reports, the High Commissioner made disparaging remarks about the BNP without naming it for opposition to the proposed Tipaimukh dam at a seminar on regional connectivity sponsored by the India-Bangladesh Friendship Society. The Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni was present as the chief guest.

The Indian High Commissioner has also been in the news before his controversial speech while making rounds in the Secretariat, explaining to the Ministers that the Tipaimukh dam will not be harmful for Bangladesh and that it would not be constructed in violation of international law. His efforts have been reasonably successful as some of the Ministers have supported him in the media; although, outside this small circle, significant opposition has been building up against the dam across a wide section of the people.

In fact, environmental groups and the civil society in Bangladesh were already at work articulating public opinion against Tipaimukh dam before the High Commissioner's speech. In Manipur where the dam will provide electricity and control floods, indigenous people have described it as a "death trap." Environmental groups there also have fiercely objected to this dam. There is a whole literature available on the internet on vicious opposition inside India to Tipaimukh. Quite expectedly, the BNP, sensing the political potentials, has been leading the opposition to the dam.

The issue has all it takes to arouse passion in Bangladesh. If constructed, it will affect Bangladesh's northeast the same way the Farakka Barrage has started environmental degradation in the north-western part of the country. This dam, like the Farakka, is on an international river that India has planned without proper consultation with Bangladesh as the lower riparian. The site of the dam is on an earthquake prone zone that raises the possibility of devastating the north eastern part of Bangladesh with water if the dam is destroyed by an earthquake in future.

The High Commissioner has not cared to take note of the passion building in Bangladesh or opposition in his own country over the dam. He said instead that Bangladesh has no position under international law to object to the project. The High Commissioner has dismissed the opposition to the dam as “India phobia” implying that the BNP is responsible for it, although to a vast majority of the people of Bangladesh, this is patriotism. In fact, thanks to the High Commissioner's efforts, he has brought “India phobia” and patriotism to mean the same in the context of the Tipaimukh issue.

The high commissioner's explanation that the proposed dam would not violate international law and, therefore, Bangladesh has no right of objection is very simplistic. There are serious legal issues that could be subject of a separate article. Additionally, Bangladesh Water Development Board officials in 2003 had informed through the media that the Tipaimukh dam is part of a grand plan to connect thirty international rivers that flow from India to Bangladesh by building man-made canals and dams to divert water from India's flood prone northeastern region to the relatively arid central provinces. The high commissioner has not mentioned about these serious matters concerning the dam that the public of Bangladesh are learning nevertheless as they become more and more concerned with the potential dangers.

In Bangladesh, we are more tolerant than any other capital in giving leeway to foreign ambassadors and high commissioners over their activities as guests in our country. We tolerate them even when they address press conferences to openly accuse us of being corrupt, ungovernable, etc. in contravention of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In this case, the Indian high commissioner has trashed public sentiment over a very volatile issue and provoked the BNP, a major party in Bangladesh that has twice formed the government, leaving it with little choice than to react in the manner in which they did. He disparagingly made statements that questioned the expertise of Bangladeshi experts and accused opponents of the dam for “lies” in projecting the dangers of the dam.

The high commissioner should have been summoned to the Foreign Ministry for an explanation for these remarks, particularly those hinted at the BNP. Unfortunately that was not possible because the foreign minister was present when the high commissioner made his remarks. However, she chose to remain silent and gave the BNP an opportunity to shoot at two targets with one bullet. They have been looking for an opportunity to confront the high commissioner for his views on Tipaimukh in recent times. He has given them this opportunity in a silver platter by his speech. Dipu Moni's silence has come as a “political bonus” to the BNP as they called for her resignation together with the withdrawal of the Indian high commissioner.

The foreign minister seems to be finding herself increasingly on sticky wickets while facing the media. In this instance, the Indian high commissioner spoke before she did. She thus had the opportunity to react to the remarks. If she had an antenna attuned to diplomatic norms and deviations, she would have instantly realized that she has been put on a spot, just like she was when an Indian journalist caught her on the wrong foot with the question on “buffer state” during the visit of the Indian foreign minister in February.

Indian diplomats are well known for their professionalism and their calm under testing circumstances. They never reacted in the manner the present Indian high commissioner has even when provoked. In fact, Indian environmentalists oppose this dam more forcefully than ours do and that makes the tone of the high commissioner's remarks difficult to comprehend. During the last BNP government, the present high commissioner's predecessor was made to listen to an anti-Indian diatribe from then Bangladesh foreign minister in a seminar. She retained her calm during the seminar, which was then considered by everyone as a professional reaction to an unprofessional conduct.

In February this year, the Indian foreign minister visited Bangladesh as special envoy and met the army chief without meeting the leader of the opposition. In April, the Indian foreign secretary also met the army chief. These meetings have raised questions and concerns in Bangladesh about Indian intentions. The high commissioner's speech enhances these concerns because it suggests that India's diplomacy vis-à-vis Bangladesh is becoming more assertive and arrogant and less helpful for development of better Bangladesh-India relations.

Bangladesh is a deltaic plane where the rivers that flow from India through her into the Bay of Bengal give her the fertility to sustain one of the most densely populated parts of the world. The grand Indian Plan will turn this fertile deltaic plane into part desert and part land unfit for agriculture due to rising salinity. The proposed Tipaimukh dam will carry on this dangerous process started by the Farakka barrage by destroying the fertile Sylhet division that receives water from the Barak River into its Surma and Kushiara rivers. The high commissioner has suggested generation of electricity as a main reason for construction of the Tipaimukh dam. In fact, it will generate only 400 MW of electricity. If India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan cooperate for building dams in Nepal where the terrain is natural for such projects, then there would be ten times more electricity with the added advantage of controlling dangerous floods in these parts. The argument of electricity generation from Tipaimukh dam is therefore a very weak one indeed compared to environmental threats and damages to Bangladesh-India relations that it would surely cause.

The prime minister correctly sensed that the Indian high commissioner has raised a politically harmful controversy for her party and Bangladesh. She has therefore asked the BNP to send its own experts to study Tipaimukh, whose opinion would be considered in adopting Bangladesh's response. The ministers have also stopped talking about the dam. The high commissioner's speech may in fact become a conduit in bridging the AL-BNP divide against Tipaimukh for its dangers to Bangladesh. It should now move the foreign ministry to enforce norms in the way ambassadors act in Bangladesh.

PM's Saudi trip and the Embarrassing Ministerial Conducts

Published in The Dhaka Courier, May 1, 2009

The Prime Minister's just concluded visit to Saudi Arabia, although taken for the purpose of performing the Umrah, achieved significant results in the shape of furthering Bangladesh's bilateral interests in the Kingdom where some 2.5 million Bangladeshis live and work. The expatriates from KSA remit the largest amount of foreign exchange to Bangladesh that amounted to US 2.7 billion in 2008 but our people there work in conditions that are pathetic and inhuman in many instances. The news that KSA has been preparing a list of 200,000 Bangladeshis who had switched jobs to be deported despite having legal papers was a burning issue that our expatriates there had been trying for the entire period of the emergency to bring to the attention of the government without either support or sympathy.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit has resolved this issue as part of a Saudi law that was enacted while the PM was in Saudi Arabia. The new law will allow expatriates to switch jobs without losing their legal status to live and work in Saudi Arabia. The 200,000 Bangladeshis who were facing uncertainty and unbelievable tension will now be able to breathe again. They thus see the Prime Minister as a benefactor from the Almighty.

However, the press briefing of the Foreign Minister who accompanied the Prime Minister on this visit surprised everybody when she told journalists that Sheikh Hasina's meeting with King Abdullah was the first time in seven years that a Bangladesh Prime Minister had met the Saudi King. The BNP protested immediately with facts that showed that Khaleda Zia had met the Saudi King as Prime Minister during her tenure from 2002 to 2006 not once but four times. To embarrass the Foreign Minister even further, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged the error made by her in a press briefing of his own.

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni is a bright and intelligent Minister and it is unbelievable that she made such a mistake. The press briefing of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs after the BNP had come out contradicting the Foreign Minister was also a surprise move. This was a reflection on the unprofessional way things are handled at the Foreign Ministry. In the first two decades of our independence, there used to be a Director-General (External Publicity) in the Foreign Ministry who used to handle all these briefings. This office was then modeled after a similar office in the Indian External Affairs Ministry where a Minister or a State Minister in the Indian External Affairs Ministry seldom appears before the media. A Joint Secretary level bureaucrat deals with the media on a regular basis.
The Prime Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia was not a visit that was undertaken to allow her and her entourage of over 2 dozen mostly family members to perform the Umrah where at our request; the Saudis arranged a meeting with their King. The welcome news about Bangladesh expatriates was also not the result of the efforts of the Prime Minister but it was an outcome of a new Saudi law enacted by Saudi Arabia. This notwithstanding, one must share the feelings of excitement and relief among Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia and give credit for this outcome to Sheikh Hasina. One also understands that there is political mileage here to cash upon that may have prompted the media briefing by the Foreign Minister.

The Foreign Minister, however, could have simply flagged this and left it at that. If there was an issue here to blame, that blame could have been squarely placed upon the government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed that failed to take up the inhuman sufferings of Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia. BNP for all its failures during its tenure for which it lost the elections miserably had no role to play in all this. Instead the Foreign Minister was quick to bring the BNP into the equation to suggest that one of the main reasons for the success of the visit to Saudi Arabia was because our Prime Minister was able to meet the Saudi King that Khaleda Zia failed. The State Minister while putting records straight also tried to outsmart his boss Dipu Moni. In his press briefing, Mahmud spent more time telling journalists about earlier meetings of Sheikh Hasina with the Saudi King after quickly getting over the mistake made by his boss and then going on to tell them that the Saudi King referred to our Prime Minister as "sister". It is a usual practice for the Saudi King to refer to someone like our Prime Minister as a "sister". In case of a Prime Minister who is a Muslim and male, he would call him "brother". There was nothing special in this address although the State Minister made it sound like one and also left the journalists with a feeling that this was again a "first" for Bangladesh where a Saudi King had addressed our Prime Minister as "sister".

There are two elements here that we need to focus upon. The one I have touched briefly and will again do so shortly is on the Foreign Ministry. The other is the tendency among Ministers of this Government to get on the right side of this Prime Minister by losing no opportunity of blaming the BNP and more so, Khaleda Zia, for the ills in our politics. They seem to have concluded that if they attack the former Prime Minister and the BNP, they will end up by pleasing the Prime Minister because they see her blaming the BNP and Khaldea Zia for most of the problems her government is facing now.

A significantly development in Bangladesh that has been the direct product of the rapid growth of private TV channels in the country is the exposure that it has given to the Ministers before the media. Ministers relish this exposure for it gives them publicity that they can see visually. It also gives them the opportunity to reach the Prime Minister that they normally cannot because of a variety of reasons. In other words, the Ministers use the media, particularly the visual media, to interact with the Prime Minister and say things that they think will please her. In their eagerness, most of them do not do their own homework; nor do they care to consult their other colleagues. Thus they just not end up making mistakes quite often, like the one made by the Foreign Minister, but also contradict each other. Only recently when the British born Bangladeshi Faisal was caught, a Minister went before the TV and instantly concluded that all Qaumi Madrassas are dens for Islamic terrorists. The Prime Minister thereafter met all the senior leaders of the Qaumi Madrassas and assured them to the contrary!

It is time to draw a line and get the Ministers out of media glare for their sake and for the sake of this government. No professional government conducts governance before the media; it is right of information extended beyond bounds of reason and often propriety in what these Ministers are doing on a daily basis. A Minister must come before the media when the issue is of national importance and within his/her jurisdiction. In all other cases, there should be a bureaucrat in the Ministry to do the job under the right of information. When a Minister makes a mistake before the media, there is no way of retracing without embarrassing the Government. When such a mistake in terms of information is made by a bureaucrat; it can be easily dealt with as a bureaucratic lapse.

Coming back to the Foreign Minister; her lapse is not a simple one that the State Minister for Foreign Affairs would have us think. The Saudis, if they care about Bangladesh, could of course take this differently. At its worst, they could feel drawn rather undiplomatically into the internal affairs of Bangladesh. All this could have been avoided without either of the Ministers at the Foreign Ministry facing the media. The Director-General (External Affairs) who is a senior level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (this post is now filled by a career diplomat after being retrieved from the Ministry of Information) could have easily given the media the briefings, instead by the Ministers. As a bureaucrat, it would have been less likely that he would have made such factual mistake. Even if he had, the way out would not have been at all embarrassing as it has been in this instance.

Moving towards a government by advisers?

Published in the Daily Star, April 16, 2009

BANGLADESH'S peaceful transition to elected government has unfortunately been overtaken by post-election conflicts, of which the BDR carnage has been the worst. As a consequence, we have failed to take advantage of an opportunity to turn the corner.

In the midst of these conflicts, we have overlooked a new trend in governance that has been set into motion by the government. Bangladesh opted for parliamentary democracy in 1991 after the country's two major political parties, Awami League and BNP, succeeded in ending the military dictatorship of General Ershad.

However, in the fifteen years during which BNP and AL held power alternately, parliamentary democracy was compromised as Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia emerged as undisputed leaders who exercised unrestrained power in the party, and in governance when in the government. At the same time, the parliament was also made non-functional as the party in opposition opted for the streets for resolution of conflicts, which made politics more conflict-ridden and violent.

The form of government in Bangladesh during this period can best be described as prime ministerial where, unlike the Westminster model, the prime minister was by no means the "first among equals;" she was much more like a president.

The incumbent government, without any discussion in parliament, has made further dents in the parliamentary or prime ministerial form of governance. This government has amended the Rules of Business to empower the prime minister to appoint any number of advisers and special assistants, and to give them status of ministers, ministers of state and deputy ministers.

The amendment thus allows the prime minister to sidestep the constitutional requirement that restricts her from appointing more than 10% of her ministers as "technocrats," who do not have to be members of Parliament. It also allows these advisers and special assistants to participate in cabinet meetings as equals to ministers, who are members of Parliament.

In the context of forms of government, this is uncharted territory for it does not fit into any known form -- parliamentary, presidential, prime ministerial, etc. The issue is not just one related to the form of government; more fundamental issues are involved here. Allowing advisers and special assistants the status of ministers/state ministers/deputy ministers, and also charge of different ministries, contradicts the sovereignty of the parliament because they are not answerable to it. Instead, they are answerable to the prime minister. In this context, the amendment has put the prime minister's power over that of the Parliament.

It would be worthwhile to look at Alexander Pope's famous dictum "for forms of government, let fools contest, whatever is administered best is best" to try and understand what is emerging in Bangladesh. Is this emerging form really going to be best for Bangladesh? This is a tough call because such a form of government has not been tried anywhere before. One can look into this issue from various viewpoints to find an answer.

First, the prime minister chose to leave out from her cabinet those who had experience as ministers during the party's last stint in power. Instead, she inducted individuals without such experience. Second, she told the new ministers that she was keeping them under watch, and if they failed to perform they would be shown the door. Third, in a talk show, one of the high profile advisers said that it was his responsibility to keep watch over the ministers and report to the prime minister.

In all these viewpoints, there is very little that suggests that this new experiment in governance will succeed. Instead, there is plenty to hint that it could cause problems rather than solve them. An interesting case in point is the ministry of energy that is headed by the prime minister. This ministry has an elected minister with the rank of a state minister, and also has an adviser with the rank of a full minister. The adviser will obviously not act under the state minister given the superior status he holds. But then, if the state minister acts at the dictates of the adviser, the principles of elected government will be compromised.

An adviser enjoying the rank of a full minister as the minister of planning and the minister of finance has been given the responsibility to look after these ministries as the prime minister's economic affairs adviser. In terms of realpolitik in Bangladesh, where access to the prime minister is a major basis of influence in governance, this system has the potential of becoming a management disaster.

The incumbent government has followed its predecessor, the un-elected caretaker government (CTG), in amending the Rules of Business (RoB). The CTG had amended the RoB to by-pass the constitutional restriction on the size of the council of advisers. The constitutional legality of that amendment was not tested in court because people were more focused on the constitutional legality of the CTG itself for extending its stay in office beyond the constitutionally set limit of ninety days.

Times are different now, and it is an elected government that is in office where the principles of democracy and constitutionality are of the essence. In the case of the AL, the principles of democracy should be more sacrosanct than it was for the un-elected (CTG).

People were disappointed when Bangabandhu imposed one-party rule in the shape of Baksal , rejecting the very principles with which he had motivated the people to follow him in 1971 to establish a democratic society and a democratic system of governance. The people have given his daughter Sheikh Hasina a historic majority and mandate, believing that her party would establish the democratic Bangladesh that had eluded her father.

Amending the RoB to allow non-elected individuals to head ministries and take part in cabinet meetings at par, or better, with elected individuals contradicts both democratic the premises and the constitution. If contested in a court of law, there is no reason why the amendment of the RoB would not be declared un-constitutional.

For a government that has been installed with broad public approval, a better way out is to elect these advisers to Parliament. The AL can do this easily, given the numbers they have in Parliament. A few members could vacate their seats to get these advisers elected. It will allow the prime minister to use their services democratically and constitutionally.

Bangladesh at Crossroads as Democracy Returns

Will the Long-Awaited Development Materialize?

A major event occurred on December 29, in Bangladesh, the third largest Muslim state in the world with a population of 150 million: Over 86% of 80 million eligible voters elected the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina to power, ending two years of a military-backed emergency rule.

In many senses, it was a watershed election in a developing country, but was largely ignored by the international press because there was no "breaking story" of violence here.

Bangladesh is known for its poverty and frequent natural disasters that visit the country on a regular basis. It is hardly given the credit for the spirit of its people for fighting to overcome poverty and natural disasters.

In 1988, when Bangladesh faced one of the worst floods ever known in human history, foreign aid workers and journalists were astounded by the resilience of the Bangladeshi people. A lot of this resilience and fighting spirit is derived from their faith in Islam as a "complete code of life" for 88% of Bangladeshis.

Back to Democracy?

There were speculations abroad that democracy would not return; that there would by violence and disorder in Bangladesh during the period of the military-backed rule since January 11, 2007.

Before the emergency, Bangladesh had an unfortunate tryst with widespread violence and corruption where the two main parties, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the party in power before the military backed government, and the Awami League (AL), contributed to bringing Bangladesh close to a failed state with mindless corruption that earned Bangladesh Transparency International’s dubious title of the most corrupt country in the world and anarchy in the streets.

The people thus welcomed emergency quietly. But the military, taking advantage of abrogation of the constitution, indulged in excesses while pursuing the drive against corruption under which the two former Prime Ministers, Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia, both women, were incarcerated with a large number of politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats.

Although the military backed government had just the constitutional responsibility to create a level playing ground for free and fair elections, it indulged in extra-constitutional roles such as attempting to break the two main stream political parties to create a "king’s party" to which to hand-over power that failed eventually.

Their excesses led to spiraling of prices of essential commodities that affected the people very harshly, a predicament further aggravated by an unfavorable international market from where the government had to import essential commodities such as rice, edible oil, etc.

The military-backed government did one commendable thing for returning democracy to Bangladesh. They carried out efficiently the task of registration of 80 million voters and issued them photo identity cards. International pressure and people’s impatience with the military-backed government led to the general elections in Bangladesh. The BNP that bore the brunt of pressure of the authorities in their anti-corruption drive was in disarray.

In the BNP, those who tried to curtail the powers of the party chief while she was in jail were denied nominations for the parliamentary elections. The AL, in which also senior party leaders tried to curtail their party chief’s powers, took these so-called reformists on board and went to elections united.

In addition, the AL that had 14 parties as allies from the 2001 elections, with all these parties in name only, also formed an alliance with the Jatiya Party of former President Ershad that had won 7.6% of total votes cast in 2001. As a result, the AL triumphed in a manner that was unbelievable, winning 233 seats alone and 262 seats with its allies.

The BNP that had won 197 seats in 2001 was routed with only 32 seats. In fact, the BNP closely beat the Jatiya party that won 30 seats. The BNP’s allies, the Islamist parties of which Jamaat e Islami was one, failed even more disastrously. In fact, BNP alliance with Jamat, whose members committed war crimes in 1971, and its indulgence in extreme corruption when in power contributed to its election trouncing.


Government in Action

The results surprised the AL for winning it so overwhelmingly; the BNP for losing it so catastrophically; and the outside world for the peaceful manner it was held. Subsequent developments were also surprising and interesting. In announcing the cabinet, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left out almost all her senior colleagues who were in her cabinet when the AL was in power in 1996-2001 naming women in key ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs.

In another departure, Sheikh Hasina appointed a number of Advisers with Ministerial rank and amended the Rules of Business so that she can appoint more Advisers who can also sit in cabinet meetings, making them de facto cabinet ministers. For the first time the opposition attended the opening session of parliament that augurs well for transition although immediately afterwards they abstained on seating arrangement.

The AL government has its hands full with the election promises it made. There is a "Vision 2021" to transform Bangladesh into a middle income nation. The party is committed against corruption, a popular task undertaken by the military-backed government. It has also pledged to try those who committed war crimes during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971.

The economic agenda is an achievable one, for Bangladesh has both the human and natural resources needed for such an agenda. Unfortunately, Bangladesh has faltered in the past in sustainable economic development to become a middle income country because of failure of politics that has seen the army in power frequently as in January, 2007, when the military officials introduced an emergency rule and installed a civilian government of their choice while holding power behind its back after the BNP and the AL had made governance impossible.

Bangladesh is the envy of all South Asian countries with no ethnic, regional or religious divide but has squandered her natural advantage over rivalry between the two main parties that was the worst at the leadership level with Shaikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia treating each other as the nemesis of the other. Parliament was made non-functional and politics was dominated by conflict and violence. Thus the new government’s economic agenda will depend mainly on how well politics is managed for which cooperation between the government and the opposition will be crucial.

Fighting Corruption

The new government has made its intentions clear on corruption by naming ministers with clean records. This notwithstanding, people who hold public offices in Bangladesh are paid very little while exercising enormous power thus exposing them to the lures of corruption. The corruption agenda will therefore be a hard one to implement.

On trial of war criminals, the government is making preparations for setting up a Commission. The demand for the trials is one deeply entrenched in the psyche of the people, but it will extend the government’s ability to the utmost to hold it in a credible manner, because these crimes were committed nearly 4 decades ago.

The war criminals are allegedly mostly from Bangladesh’s Jamat-e-Islami party. The government therefore will have to be careful so that just war criminals are tried and not the Jamat. Islam in Bangladesh is based upon liberal traditions being influenced by Sufism and secularism and has fundamental roots in society. Even then, the religious fundamentalists whose number is not very large could whip up trouble by using the slogan that Islam is in peril that could have grassroots support unless the government is careful and sensitive.

Foreign Policy

In foreign policy, this Government is expected to seek closer cooperation with India which is in the country's geopolitical interest.

The Indian foreign minister paid a visit to Dhaka this February as an Envoy of his Prime Minister.

Two agreements were signed during the visit. The first was the Agreement on Investment Promotion and Protection, and the other was the Bilateral Trade Agreement.

Tough issues such as sharing of waters of common rivers, trade and maritime boundary from Bangladesh’s side, cross border security, and land transit from the Indian side were the main focus of discussion between the two countries.

The two countries have these issues unresolved mainly on lack of trust and political will, with Bangladesh accusing India of violating international law particularly on water sharing.Only political will on both sides can help achieve sustainable friendly relations.

Bangladesh has over 4 million people living in the Middle East whose foreign exchange earnings are crucial for the country’s economic development.

This factor, added to Bangladesh’s Islamic base and heritage, will make the need for seeking closer ties with Islamic countries a major focus of the new government’s foreign policy.

The new government was quick to condemn the recent carnage in Gaza and will continue to back the Palestinian rights.

The December elections have set Bangladesh on course for transition to democracy with great scope to economically transform into a middle income nation. However, political accommodation between the AL and the BNP will hold the key to this transition and transformation. There is now both hope and apprehension in Bangladesh.

Manifestos and Foreign Policy

Published in The Daily Star, Sunday, December 28, 2008

A study of the election manifestos of the two mainstream parties on foreign policy is not encouraging. Foreign policy figures separately in both documents, but not foreign policy issues. AL's manifesto says that Bangladesh's foreign policy goal is "friendship with all and malice towards none." It also speaks of developing friendly relations with all countries.

The BNP manifesto, too, speaks of developing friendly relations with all countries, but has avoided mentioning India by name. Both documents speak of multilateral diplomacy and economic diplomacy, and their importance to Bangladesh, including the importance of Saarc and Bimstec. Both documents have lauded Bangladesh's peacekeeping role. The AL has carried this subject under Defense Policy; the BNP under Foreign Policy.

The BNP document takes note of the concern of the international community about terrorism and militancy and the need to contain them, but not in the part on foreign policy .The AL takes care of militancy and terrorism in one line by supporting the formation of a South Asian Task Force in the part that deals with foreign policy. In both manifestos, the need for manpower export, the interests of Bangladeshi expatriates, and enhancing foreign remittance and foreign direct investment have been mentioned. But these issues have been mentioned in an incoherent manner in different sections of the documents and not as part of foreign policy.

By not bringing foreign policy issues under one head, both manifestos have failed to focus on fundamental changes that have occurred in recent times in the way nations conduct relations. Globalisation and the role of non-state actors in international relations have broken down the two key elements of the Westphalian concept of sovereignty that had formed the basis of foreign policy in the past, namely territoriality and exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures. As a consequence, today, foreign policy formulation and execution have become extremely difficult and more complex.

Issues such as global warming, rise of militancy, terrorism by state and non-state actors, and most recently the economic meltdown in US and its impact worldwide, have brought in additional challenges that are shaping foreign policies everywhere. These challenges have made it critical for governments to deal with foreign policy with great care, and have also made their foreign ministries the key ministry.

Just mentioning that Bangladesh's foreign policy goal is one for friendship and against malice, and to use this principle to develop bilateral relations with all countries is not a serious way of handling such an important subject as foreign policy. Both documents have treated foreign policy the same way as they have done in past elections, thus failing to realise that foreign policy today is a matter of survival as well as a great opportunity for development.

An election manifesto is really not the right document to reflect on all of the above. In such a document, parties concentrate on those issues that give them the maximum benefit in getting votes. Foreign policy does not normally figure as a major issue in elections in most developing countries, but to suggest that it is not an issue of serious concern to Bangladeshi voters may not be wholly correct.

Bangladeshis take an active interest in what happens abroad. The six million compatriots who live abroad make them take a more than usual interest in foreign policy. For example, the stand the party's take on India is a major concern of voters. It is not by oversight that the BNP did not mention India by name in their manifesto, because it is intended to indicate their attitude towards India to the voters .

Bangladesh's future depends largely on expanding external trade, increasing foreign remittance and foreign direct investment, manpower export, etc. -- all issues of foreign policy although in their election manifestos neither party has acknowledged these as such. Bangladesh could become a successful nation or a failed one, depending on how she handles these crucial foreign policy goals.

The success or failure in attaining these goals depends on the support and understanding of the international community, particularly of the development partners, which will depend on how Bangladesh manages her domestic politics and controls Islamic fundamentalism and militancy.

Both manifestos have failed to acknowledge that Bangladesh must re-establish its image as a predominantly Muslim state with liberal traditions, which had taken a serious battering before 1/11 as a result of failure of politics.

For some unknown reason, foreign policy in Bangladesh has not been given the importance that it deserves to serve the country's interests better in a complex and increasingly globalised world. The two manifestos treat foreign affairs as a subject peripheral to governance. Even this caretaker government has treated foreign policy in the same fashion.

At a time when the opinions of Great Britain and Belgium will be very crucial in the world's assessment of the elections, this government has recalled our high commissioner/ambassador in these stations as they will be retiring. If the government had viewed foreign policy seriously, it would have given these two career diplomats extension so that they could remain in their important stations to signal that Bangladesh is capable of handling foreign policy professionally.

It may not be unfair to mention that newspaper analysing the two manifestos had no need to comment on what either said on foreign policy, which is indeed a sad commentary on the importance the AL and the BNP have given to it.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: December 29th Elections - A Watershed for Bangladesh

The latest developments on the political scene of Bangladesh are very encouraging. Finally, the Government has announced that emergency would be lifted from the 17^th of December and from 12^th of December, restrictions would be withdrawn on political meetings and rallies. Both the mainstream parties have welcomed the decision and now there seem no more obstacles to the holding of the parliamentary elections on the 29^th of December.

Nearly two years of military backed caretaker government, under the cover of emergency, would finally come to an end. Bangladesh was created in 1971 because her people considered nothing more important than living in a free country with a democratic system of government. To establish such a country, many hundreds of thousands of people gave their lives. Thus the last two years, under a government that had suspended people’s fundamental rights, was not an experience that the people of Bangladesh were comfortable with. But then in the period around 1/11, politics had been vitiated to such an extent that the same people for whom a military rule or military backed rule is completely unacceptable, accepted the government of Dr. Fakhruddin with a quiet approval because they considered that their beloved motherland’s very existence was at stake.

Unfortunately, the reasons for which the people had given this Government approval have not been largely achieved. Corruption which was a major issue for supporting this Government has hardly been dealt any serious blow and a lot of those that the people thought would be forever banished from politics have returned. There seems to be little doubt that those who have not yet emerged on the political scene for one reason or another would do so soon after the elections are held. The reason for this government’s failure to deal with corruption effectively has been due to the fact that it went for over-kill and went after too many people with the corruption issue to be able to deal most of them a death blow. Thus although the people are happy that the military backed government is on the way out; they are disappointed and even apprehensive about the shape of things to come.

When this government went after politicians with the corruption issue, the latter were rightly upset that they went about in a manner that suggested that all politicians are corrupt. Nevertheless, the politicians must also realize that corruption did enter politics in a manner that had to be confronted and tackled. Now that government is again returning to them, let them prove that this Government is wrong by assuming all politicians are corrupt. They should not have any doubt that people generally are convinced that Bangladesh was rightfully given the title by TIB as the most corrupt nation on earth, once under the AL and thrice under the BNP. They now should deal with corruption because if they do not, Bangladesh will slide into a abyss at a time when if they do, they will not be able to come out of it in decades, given the current global economic condition.

Conversely, if the politicians cooperate amongst themselves and bring into governance a bipartisanship where the government and the opposition can come together on issues of economic development and foreign affairs, then the two years that they suffered under the caretaker government will not be wasted. To start that process, they should see that the 29^th December elections are held peacefully and when the results are announced, the loser has the spirit and courage to congratulate the winner. Once the Government is formed, the winner and the loser should make the parliament functional and in its first session, declare hartal history. If they can do this simple thing then they would be remembered in the country’s history in the same way those who laid down their lives for Bangladesh’s independence are remembered.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: The Caretaker Government must create a level playing ground for national elections

What was supposed to be a watershed in the development of democratic and bipartisan politics in Bangladesh is now petering towards re-establishment of one-party rule that we saw in the first 3 years of our independence and then during Ershad’s dictatorship. It is thus no surprise that in the type of partisan politics that is now being established, the partners will be the Awami League and General Ershad.

Our politics has never been perfect. In fact, it is because of such imperfection that this military-backed Government clamped emergency and expressed their determination to reform politics and politicians. The BNP’s demands for contesting the election may not have been entirely justified in the eyes of this Government; but then we have seen the Awami League make such demands in the past that have been viewed with consideration. Their demand for cancellation of election after BNP handed power to the Caretaker Government and the civil disturbances that followed ushered in the emergency. In fact, the AL has publicly stated their role in this context. The AL Chief, before leaving for US after emergency was clamped, said before the media that it would enact all ordinances of the Caretaker Government to law if they came to power.

The Caretaker Government has disappointed a lot of people by its failure to take the BNP on board. This fact alone makes its two years stay in office questionable for its failure to make the playing field level for the two mainstream parties to participate in the elections. It does not need common sense to suggest that if a party that won the last two of the three democratic elections in the country, the last one overwhelmingly, does not take part in the next election, then the outcome will not be credible and instead democracy will be dealt a deadly blow and it will push the country to uncertainty and will make the miseries that the people have faced under the Caretaker Government futile and for a lost cause.

The BNP’s decision not to go to the elections should have been deliberated with more care. It wasted too much time worrying about the time factor and was caught on the wrong foot when the date of the elections was announced. It will now have to show maturity to explain to the nation its reasons for not going to the election so that it can make a positive contribution to the country instead of going to the street and agitating over it which will only imperil the country. They should feel confident that a government formed in the manner it is going to be will not give it the moral sanction to govern and an election held without it will not be one that will last.

A word must be said about the foreign diplomats; particularly those representing the developed ones who make it their business to interfere in our politics, taking the plea that they are doing it for our good and for democracy. How would they explain that the 18^th December election will be held with the party the represents half of the people of Bangladesh out of it? The perception in the public mind that it is these meddling diplomats who have been responsible for the emergency will now need no more evidence to be established.

Those who love Bangladesh and want it to prosper, including the AL, have the responsibility to see that a credible election is held in the country that would require the participation of all the parties, particularly the AL and the BNP. All is not lost and the Caretaker Government must make efforts still to bring the BNP to the election.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Where is Bangladesh Headed?

Bangladesh’s politics has again entered into turbulent waters with BNP’s 4 point demand for participating in the elections. It seems unlikely that the Government will be able to provide satisfactory answers to the demands that cast dark shadows over the proposed 18^th December elections.

The nature of the demands notwithstanding, this Government just cannot have elections without the BNP. It came to office as it did not want then Caretaker Government to go ahead with the January 22^nd election without the AL as that would have not made the elections credible and used that excuse to extend their tenure now close to 2 years. The same argument should apply now that credible elections cannot be held without the BNP; else by logic it would lose legitimacy and expose itself to legal questions being raised about its tenure once emergency is lifted.

One understands that a group in this government would feel more comfortable with AL forming the next government as under it, the BNP has suffered much more by comparison. It is now up to Dr. Fakhruddin to hold charge and give both the parties a level playing ground for the election by listening to the BNP’s grievances. It is unfortunate that he did not pay much attention to political issues that have come up now for if he had, the problems facing the nation now would have been known to him long ago and he could have spent his time in office more for resolving these and the nation would have not faced its current uncertain predicament. Governance for which he came to office is not just cutting tapes, giving speeches in meetings or touring abroad. He has said many times that he heads a caretaker government and if that be so, his one and only task should have been to see that elections would be held in a manner acceptable to all for which BNP’s participation is a must.

As for our guests, the diplomats in the country, they have made it their affair interfering in our politics as if it is their main occupation. In doing so, it was interesting and unbelievable that both the mainstream parties were visited by a group of Arab Ambassadors to be given their views on our elections given the fact that in most of their countries, democratic election is unknown!

Unfortunate as it is that we keep on being humiliated by these foreign diplomats, it is time to see if they could do something positive for Bangladesh by their interest in our politics. Let them talk to the parties concerned, the caretaker government most of all, and make them see that holding an election without a major political party will only push the country to conflict and confrontation that could be disastrous for Bangladesh at a time when we need to have peace in the political process to save the country from failing.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Let it be a Tripartite Meeting among Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina and Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed

In a bleak political scenario, the news that the two former Prime Ministers have agreed to sit together is one piece of good news for everybody. The way the news has come to press suggests that the idea was raised to Sheikh Hasina by Ambassadors of three European nations and she agreed with the idea. When the BNP chairperson was later asked by journalists about her reaction to what Sehikh Hasina told the Ambassadors, the former was positive to the idea of the meeting between her and Sheikh Hasina.

It is not clear still how such a meeting will be held or what role the Government will play in it. The Commerce Adviser, who has the habbit of losing no opportunity to appear before the media, later said before TV camera and journalists that "on the basis of their (Hasina-Khaleda) eagerness, the government is always ready to take any kind of initiative helpful for the progress of the nation.” The Adviser’s comment suggests that the Government has no role still in the proposed meeting and it has to be seen how it will be involved when the talks are held ultimately.

The nation had been expecting that the two former Prime Ministers would have a good and working relationship with each other since they emerged as the leading politicians of the country after leading the democratic movement that ended the decade long dictatorship of General HM Ershad. The lack of it was responsible for many of the country’s political problems.

At this moment though, the problem is not really between the BNP and the AL; nor is it between the two ladies. It is the Caretaker Government’s role that has been responsible for a lot of the current fluidity in the country’s political process. It is because of this, the meeting between the two ladies should in fact be a tripartite meeting between Begum Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina and Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed if the objective is to untangle the current political impasse and move the country towards a credible election for transition from a military backed government to an elected government. Otherwise, the two former Prime Ministers sitting together will not solve the current political impasse as the solution to it lies in the Caretaker Government.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: December Elections in Bangladesh Need Participation of Both the BNP and the AL to be Credible

Politics in Bangladesh has entered a crucial phase. The election is has been scheduled to be held on 18^th December. Sadly, at this critical juncture, the BNP has raised serious objections to its participation because it feels that the EC has not made the playing field even. It has listed a 7 points demand before the EC as conditions for its participation in the elections.

The elections on 18^th are crucial to bring back the country on path to democracy. This caretaker government spent nearly 2 years to give the country a fair election. During this period, the Government of Dr. Fakhruddin, backed by the armed forces, has turned things upside down, trying to deal with corruption, reform institutions, politics and political institutions, with the objective of holding free and fair elections.

If at the end of it, a major political party feels that there is no level playing ground for its participation in the polls, then for all practical purposes, the efforts of this Government has not been successful. The people of this country felt that the BNP’s efforts to hold the January 22^nd elections in 2007 would have been meaningless without the participation of the AL. Likewise, they now feel that without the BNP in the 18^th December elections, the country cannot have credible polls.

In this case, the BNP’s decision has been based on two issues that should be given due consideration. First, the redrawing of the constituencies has affected the BNP much more adversely for them to feel that the EC has not been fair. Then the CEC’s comments on the 2001 election was one that toed the AL;s official line that the 2001 election was not fair. Thus the doubts about the EC’s fairness in the minds of the BNP are logical that cannot be wished away.

This Government should not hold elections just because it has announced the date for holding it. The date can be re-scheduled if the Government wants to hold honest and fair elections. It is time for this Government to show the public that it is an honest one.

Reform Agenda Number One: Let the government govern

Published in The New Age, October 9, 2006

Looking into the future where the politicians stand between us and our future and with neither of the two major parties a clear favourite for the next election, the time now seems most opportune to force out of them an understanding that no political party will have the ‘right’ to agitate in the streets for the downfall of an elected government and those trying to do so will face legal penalties under the law, writes M Serajul Islam

The BNP and the Awami League have had between them 15 years of people’s support to help achieve the country’s well being. The people have shown their respect for the leadership of both the leading ladies. Their respect for them has been sincere and given with just one hope, that between them, they will help achieve for the country the goals for which millions have accepted martyrdom in 1971. In any other country, with such potentials as they exist in Bangladesh, such respect and support from the people for the leadership would have taken that country towards her cherished goals and easily established her as a respected country in the comity of nations. But 15 years of support and respect our people have given to the two major parties and their top leaders notwithstanding, Bangladesh hovers close to a failed state because our politics and politicians cannot find a single national agenda for bipartisan cooperation. Instead, so extreme is their partisanship, each is more interested in damaging the other than taking the country forward. It is doubtful whether in any other country; such politics exists as they do in Bangladesh, a country where the people have shown at critical times of their history what sacrifices they can make, and what mettle they are made of to achieve their goals.

I was recently watching a TV talk show on our politics with audience participation. Among the panelists, there was an eminent lawyer of international repute and a minister. One of the panelists responded to a question from the audience by stating that the people have the ‘right’ to take the law into their own hands when they feel that their fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution are being violated. To me this was a most astounding submission that could be made on a public TV channel and that too in the company of a lawyer of such eminence. My first reaction was disappointment, in fact, shock to see the body language of the lawyer to this submission. He did not object to the submission; rather by what he added to her statement, he gave me the clear impression that he supported her.

I am no lawyer. I know Article 11 of our Constitution enshrines that Bangladesh “shall be a democracy in which fundamental human rights and freedoms and respect for the dignity and worth of the human person shall be guaranteed”. These fundamental rights and freedoms are set out in details in the relevant part of the Constitution but nowhere there are individuals given the ‘right’ to enforce these constitutional guarantees by destroying private and public property and creating anarchy when they feel that the government was taking these away. The only legal recourse individuals have to protect these guarantees against infringement by the government is to change that government by constitutional means and also pursue individual infringements in the courts. Attempt to bring down by use of force an elected government is an act of treason that individuals, groups or political parties may attempt at their peril. Admitting the individuals’ right to ensure constitutional guarantees by force against perceived government encroachment is the ideal prescription for lawlessness and anarchy that any right thinking person should shudder before admitting.

But that is not all for the point would need elaboration. Take for example, the issue of Kansat which this panelist used to justify ‘right’ of the individuals to take the law in their hands or for that matter any act of lawlessness that we have seen in this country recently. It is true that in most of these incidents, individual rights have been tampered. It is also true that in most of the cases, the law enforcing agencies have acted in a manner that leaves a lot to be desired. But then, we also know that our democratic politics is now not yet well entrenched institutionally. All the three governments we had in the last 15 years of democratic rule have used law enforcing agencies to tackle political opposition in a manner where fundamental rights of individuals have been violated. The Status of Human Rights Report that the US State Department brings out every year has documented these violations committed by the BNP and the AL while in power. In fact, Bangladesh’s track record on human rights under the BNP and the AL governments is no good or no worse than most developing countries, including our neighbours. In none of these countries do we witness agititational politics of the type we see in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, the opposition is trying to establish that it is their ‘democratic right’ to force an elected government out by using sometimes genuine cases of violations of fundamental rights as excuses and sometimes on charges that are purely political, subjective and tenuous.

It is true that under the present BNP government, violation of individuals’ fundamental rights have been somewhat more. It is also true that there have been political killings of top opposition leaders including an attempt on the life of the leader of the opposition and that the government has failed to bring the culprits of these dastardly acts to justice. But these violations would hardly justify, as some political parties have suggested, turning the entire country into Kansat and Shanir Akhra, for bringing down in their words an ‘autocratic’ government. In a developing country trying to establish democracy, such incidents will occur. Power shortage, for example, will not go away no matter who wins the next government. Violations of fundamental rights will occur likewise as they have in all the democratic governments we had since 1991. These are due partly to failure of governance and partly to poor economic infrastructure and resources. The resolution of these problems is directly dependent on improvement of governance for which both the major political parties should take responsibility and economic development of the country for which peace and not conflict is of the essence. It would be sheer madness to even suggest that these problems would be gone if the political parties are allowed to physically force out an elected government whenever they feel the people’s rights are being violated or that a government in power is failing at governance. The political parties have the right to articulate these failures of the government for the people; they are not the court and have no power to adjudicate and pass judgments. The political parties, least of all, should neither indulge in movements for removing an elected government nor encourage individuals to take the law into their own hands and create lawlessness.

It is therefore very important to give serious thought to what the AL is trying to establish in our politics; the right of political parties to do constitutional politics when they wish and to do street politics when they please and mix the two at their discretion. One issue has been very clearly established in Bangladesh through the last 3 elections that governments are now elected freely and fairly, the losers’ cry to the contrary notwithstanding. It has also been well established that no political party can shorten the life of the government even by a single day by unconstitutional means because the people are against it. Another established fact is the attempts to bring down elected governments by unconstitutional means are creating serious impediments to governance and causing the country unimaginable harm. It is therefore of the greatest importance that we now assert unequivocally that the Constitution of the country does not give any political party the right to bring down an elected government by force. Establishing this fact unequivocally will also force the political parties to try and make the parliamentary system work by using the parliament effectively in trying to resolve the problems like Kansat, Shanir Akhra and the rest.

The Awami League and the BNP deserve great credit in removing Ershad’s dictatorship after a decade-long movement in 1990. Since then, these two parties have shared government and the country saw three elections that have been by all accounts as free as elections in a developing country can be expected to be. Without going into details, it would be important to note that in each of these elections, the public mood was effectively translated in sending their party of choice to power. The other point to note would be that in 1996, the party that was in office lost the elections and again in 2001, the same thing happened, indicating prima facie that the

However, the AL and the BNP, in sharing power have demonstrated certain traits that fundamentally contradict the elementary principles of democracy. They have not accepted their defeat in elections graciously and have been poor losers. The AL has demonstrated this trait more than the BNP. In their two tenures in the opposition, the AL never accepted the legitimacy of the BNP government and has tried to forcibly bring down both the BNP governments by hartals, and a host of negative and destructive politics. As a result, the party failed to play the role of an opposition in a democracy, that of a watch dog, by boycotting the parliament. The BNP likewise followed the AL examples and agitated against the AL government when they were in the opposition and carried out the ‘tradition’ of negative politics set by the AL. The sad aspect of this unfortunate trait has been the fact that allegations for which each has denied the other legitimacy to govern have been at best tenuous and subjective. The three elections we had since the fall of Ershad have been observed by many national and international observer groups and there has not been one report where any of these groups have made comments on the issue of fairness that even comes remotely close to the accusations made by the losers, the Awami League in particular. This notwithstanding, the two parties while in the opposition, have made governance difficult through hartals, oborods, shamabesh and mahasamabesh for which the parties have not suffered but the country has. So a legitimate question that comes to mind is why did these parties indulge in such negative and destructive politics? Whose interest did their politics serve and whose interests did they affect? These are crucial questions and answers to these questions are in my view more important than the utopia that the two parties are now seeking, namely to find individuals to run the next election under the Non-party Caretaker Government.

I have my doubts that the two main parties, who have between them messed our politics, will be able to resolve the issues before them although the nation is very eagerly hoping they would. The AL has already claimed victory because they have been able to keep the Jamaat out of the talks. Sheikh Hasina has reiterated that they want wholesale removal of top brass of the EC and Justice Hasan. The prime minister has stressed that the Constitution must be upheld which means the NCG would be headed by Justice Hasan. The Jamaat has reminded the prime minister also that the Constitution should not be compromised under AL intransigence.

The current political scenario is therefore most uncertain. However, beneath the uncertainty, new realities are emerging that the major political parties better take note for their own well-being and that of the country. In between the BNP’s poor governance and the AL’s ceaseless agitation to unseat an elected government, the people have lost a lot of faith in both the mainstream parties and the two ladies. But then in the absence of a third force, they have little option but to choose between the two, although in the event of a third force emerging between now and election time –– and there are good hints at that direction too –– the two mainstream political parties could be setting themselves for a shock. At least one politician has taken note of this change in wind direction. Ershad, who sometime back had said he would decide whether or not to join the BNP alliance by September, has cleverly backtracked and in all probability will go for the elections alone to cash on the prospects of getting the third force votes.

But then that is a future scenario. For the present, let me go back to the TV talk show. The minister on the panel said something with which I quite agreed. He said that in the last three elections, voters were least bothered about individuals in the EC or the NCG and given the chance to vote with reasonable freedom, they were able to elect to office the party of their choice. Given all the controversy that the AL has raised over the EC and the NCG, the fact is that even without any changes, the voters would again succeed in doing the same. Politics of the country has become more transparent despite attempts of both the parties to the contrary. However, to be fair to the AL, their demands against lack of transparency and neutrality of the current EC must be addressed and redressed. Their demand for the removal of bureaucrats that the BNP has placed in the field with the elections in mind should also be addressed and corrected although the AL did the same in 2001. Their demand against Justice Hasan, however, is not based on correct interpretation of the Constitution as I wrote in a recent article in this paper. The BNP extended the retirement age of judges to avoid another CJ as the head of the NCG but that is politics for which the AL can try and take advantage with the voters who are now matured and understand politics better. To victimise Justice Hasan and disregard the Constitution would set a very bad precedent. Moreover, as the NDI has written in its recent report, the head of the NCG, surrounded by 10 other advisers and under the glare of national and international stakeholders, would have very little chance to show bias towards any political party.

Looking into the future where the politicians stand between us and our future and with neither of the two major parties a clear favourite for the next election, the time now seems most opportune to force out of them an understanding that no political party will have the ‘right’ to agitate in the streets for the downfall of an elected government and those trying to do so will face legal penalties under the law. Reform of institutions like the EC and the NCG will be an ongoing process even if the two parties succeed in their current negotiations. It is the respect for institutions and, most important of all, in the legally installed government and the Constitution that the nation should now demand and make the politicians accept without any condition. This demand and its acceptance is also the key to Bangladesh’s future and anything short of it will keep Bangladesh hovering close to being a failed state.