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.

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: 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.