The Prime Minister's Office: A Critical reform Area

Published in The Daily Star, May 31, 2008

THESE days we are talking of reforms in governance and institutions of governance and very rightly so. We hear of reform of the Public Service Commission, the Election Commission, Police administration, etc. Yet one office at the nerve centre of governance that attained a great deal of notoriety under elected governments and added significantly to the deterioration of governance, the Prime Minister's Office, or the PMO, has so far escaped attention. To bring the point home, this is what happened to the top PMO officials under Khaleda Zia's premiership. She sent her own secretary to jail. At present her principal secretary is accused for corruption; another secretary is in jail for corruption; one of her political advisers is also in jail while another has been convicted and at present a fugitive from justice.

A friend, former officer of the Pakistan Foreign Service cadre, was cleared for promotion to the rank of a Grade B Ambassador/Additional Secretary in 2003 by the SSB chaired by the cabinet secretary. Just after the conclusion of the meeting, a phone call came from a PMO official asking the cabinet secretary not to proceed with the promotions. The case was stuck for the next 3 months. When it was cleared, my friend had retired! Scores of such promotion cases duly cleared by SSB and sent routinely to the PMO for signature were by-passed by low functionaries at the PMO for political reasons. Under the last BNP Government, a political adviser with his staff ran a parallel office at the PMO as an extension of the party office or the 'Hawa Bhavan' often rendering the principal secretary and PMO officers innocuous and silent spectators. We have read in newspaper reports about the principal secretary and a private secretary to a political adviser “fighting” over the latter's alleged corruption but unable to take action against this gentleman for his political linkage. The charge against this official was that he had acquired property illegally at Gulshan worth crores of taka.

The PMO was established in 1991 when Bangladesh adopted the parliamentary system. It replaced the President's Office where two Presidents with military background had created a very powerful secretariat. It was expected that with change of system, the PMO would lose a lot of power with Ministers sharing executive authority with the Prime Minister. That did not happen because the Prime Minister assumed almost all the powers of the President, helped by the failure of the Parliament to evolve as a meaningful branch of Government. Also, unlike other parliamentary governments, Article 55 (2) of Bangladesh Constitution stated that “the executive power of the Republic shall, in accordance with this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Prime Minister “that in effect made the system Prime Ministerial instead of a truly parliamentary one where the Prime Minister is ”the first among equals”.

The Prime Minister's dominance was reflected in an un-healthy manner in the way the PMO became a government within the government, to the exclusion of the rest of the government. The Rules of Business and Allocations of Business were suitably amended to legalize the dominance that ran contrary to the parliamentary system and kept the ministers from playing their role in governance. Ministers were vying for attention of not the Prime Minister but bureaucrats at the PMO and were busy building their “power base” by closeness with those bureaucrats who found key posts at the PMO for political reasons as the elected governments politicized it.

In a parliamentary system, political parties play a crucial role in getting a government elected. However, once it is chosen, they are not expected to have any role in governance for once in government; the party in power has to appeal to the nation that has to include everybody, including the supporters of those it has defeated in the elections. In Bangladesh, this did not happen and the parties even when in power seldom overcame narrow party interests to appeal to the broader national constituency. Thus bipartisanship and consensus around national issues never evolved in our politics. At the PMO this play of narrow party interests over broader national interests was played out in the worst ways imaginable. Party officials were brought into governance as political advisers and given offices at the PMO to perform functions “relating to Political Affairs” as entrusted by the Allocations of Business. Career bureaucrats were brought to the PMO on political considerations rather than on merit. Between the political advisers and the bureaucrats, it was just not the PMO that was politicized; together they spread the virus to the entire administration. In the last BNP era, the political advisers with the politicized bureaucrats helped the party take over the PMO and through the PMO, the entire government. Ministers were spending more time to get attention of one political adviser in particular and the “political” bureaucrats there who worked as the party's men at the PMO. The Prime Minister's son at the party office or the Hawa Bhavan encouraged the nexus and the PMO became the front for the party. This nexus became the real power at the PMO leading the ministers to seek the attention of this political adviser more than her secretariat staff including the principal secretary because the blessings of Hawa Bhavan decided most crucial issues of governance. During the last BNP government, a private secretary was the PM's nephew that helped him gain influence way out of proportion to what he deserved and helped in the PMO to evolve as an obstacle to good governance.

During the AL Government, when the PMO had not fallen to such low depths, a senior retired CSP officer who was entrusted to review the administration had called for dismantling it. In a BBC talk show a few years ago, the editor of TDS had said something extremely valuable. While acknowledging that Bangladesh had made good strides towards democracy he felt that for further evolution down the road of democracy Bangladesh would have to find ways to make the Prime Minister accountable in between the elections. That would need a lot of things falling into place, like making the parliament truly functional. If we are seeking to restrain our Prime Ministers from assuming dictatorial powers, as they have done, we could also look into whether we can amend Article 55 (2) of the Constitution and re-invest executive powers in the cabinet. Those issues notwithstanding, the reform of the PMO has become essential and critical for achieving good governance of future elected governments.

The reform of the PMO must start by addressing a major issue, drawing a line between the party and the government. The Prime Minister's role as party leader and his/her need to lead it is undoubtedly very important. But that function must be performed at the party office and not at the PMO. ROB should then be amended and the PMO should be relieved from its role in dealing with political affairs. That would not allow the political advisers to sit at the PMO and free it from party interference. The provisions under schedule V of the Allocations of Business that sets aside cases that ministries must refer to the Prime Minister should also be trimmed so as not to burden the PMO with cases that are routine. As an example, cases of promotion of Deputy Secretary should not be referred by the Establishment Division to the PMO. In trimming schedule V, the spirit should be to free the Prime Minister to concentrate on more serious affairs of the state at the policy level and correspondingly allow the Ministers to play their proper role in governance. The personnel at the PMO must be chosen strictly on merit and the chain of command there under the principal secretary should not be broken by outside interference. On the conflict of interest issue, no close relative of future PMs should be appointed to any post at the PMO.

The most important objective of reform of the PMO must be to free it from political interference and bring professionalism to it. Towards the end of the BNP Government, public confidence in government was all but shattered because of the unholy nexus between the PMO and the Hawa Bhavan. That nexus should not be allowed in the next elected government. The reforms would create that environment but whether the nexus would not be repeated would depend to a large extent upon the next Prime Minister who we hope would come reformed as a consequence of developments in our politics since 1/11. While the PM's choice would be made by the election, the principal secretary would be selected. That selection should be made with great care keeping in mind that he would be the individual on whose personality and leadership qualities a reformed and professional PMO would like to make a new beginning where it would be the cause of removal of people's sufferings instead of being the cause of it.

Bangladesh's potentials are immense; we are the envy of our neighbours because of our history and our homogeneity. Yet we are languishing, hovering between hopes and despair because we have failed to establish bipartisanship in our politics. The PMO is not a party office, and by re-establishing that through the reforms suggested, Bangladesh could make a long awaited start towards bipartisan politics whose impact on the country could be the beginning of the realization of the dreams for which we had established Bangladesh through immense sacrifices.

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.