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.

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.

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.