Governance, political stability, law and order

Reaction to govt press note: Proful Patel, the Vice President of the World Bank, was even more forthright in his reaction to the government press note that described the murder as the result of 'internal feud' (The Independent, May 11, 2004). He told the newsmen that 'the donors were not convinced about the explanation given by the government with regard to the murder of the lawmaker'.

Patel's reaction only re-confirmed what the media had said earlier about the views from different quarters on this issue. The government press note, in fact, compromised the integrity of police investigation process. The press note has generated more heat than light on the barbaric murder of the lawmaker who was a highly respected man in his own right. Even the Prime Minister acknowledges that he was a very popular leader.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It is not known whether the donors' reactions led the Prime Minister to say, "I will be tougher in curbing crimes and no one, irrespective of party affiliations, will be spared. My government is firm to bring the law, order under control."

In a rare show of detachment and non-partisan attitude, the Prime Minster was further quoted to have said that 'the government would not hesitate to punish its own party men if found involved in the murder'.

Only time will tell whether the above will be hollow words or serious intention to be translated into reality. Two issues emerge from the statement of the Prime Minister, which need attention. First, the reference to be firm to bring the law and order situation under control is probably the first ever acknowledgement from the highest in coalition government that the law and order situation is out of control and serious efforts must be made to bring it under control. This is reassuring but results are to be seen.

The second issue that emerges from the statement as quoted in the press relates to that part of the statement which said that the killers would be given exemplary punishment and further that 'the government would not hesitate to punish its own party men if found involved in the murder'.

It is possible that the Prime Minister was carried off and probably wanted to send a signal to the criminals in and outside the political parties. It is not necessary to say that the intrusion of criminals into some political parties have taken place over the years. This has led to politics of criminalisation or criminalisation of politics. The need

of the hour is to cleanse the political parties of criminals. The rot started long back when during the late seventies a criminal was harboured in the Minto Road residence of a State Minister. However, the positive side was that the police could raid the house in question and arrest the criminal. But nothing happened to the State Minister although harbouring a criminal is a punishable offence under section 212 of Bangladesh Penal Code (BPC). The news media had also in the past shown photographs of persons holding high public offices with fugitives from justice.

Need for political action: The need for political action to arrest the rising trend in crimes is generally viewed in terms of asking the police to nab criminals. The police is often made the scapegoat if they fail. Others articulate, in an intellectual fashion, the need for social control in the form of social boycott of criminals and proper moral training at home and in school. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a cleansing process because moral values of the middle class of yester years are non-existent now.

Other dimensions of political control: It is necessary, in the present context, to look at other options. One such option is to have a screening process in the initial recruitment of party workers. The onus in this respect is on the political leaders. Cynics will condemn this option as something utopian. The process can be started by advocacy programmes to be undertaken by the civil society organisations (CSOs)

Second, the process of screening can also be done specially for candidates seeking elections to parliament and local government bodies. This mechanism is in place in India following a Supreme Court verdict requiring disclosure of criminal records among others. Why can't this be done in Bangladesh?

Donors’ matrix: It is customary for the donors to draw up a matrix to implement the agenda for action. Sometimes, if not always, they go to absurd lengths. For instance, in one such matrix drawn way back in 1996 to enable the government work better, it required certain legislation to be 'approved' by the Parliament within a definite date. In so doing, they in fact transgressed into the freedom of action by parliament. Saifur Rahman's statement that an elected government is not to be ordered around by donors is a welcome statement (The Daily Star, May 11, 2004). It is not a question of being ordered around. It is more a question of why create situations that allow the donors to order you around. Why can't we settle problems of law and order by cleansing the criminals from political parties and from in and outside the government?

It is too early to say whether the donors will come up with a matrix as part of failure of loan or grant of agreements. Before the government is overtaken by them, it should draw up its own matrix of dealing with law and order and meticulously implement the agenda for action and show results not so much to the donors but to regain the confidence of the citizens.

Need for collective effort: In this context, a note of caution may well be in order. If the government opts for exclusionary efforts to deal with law and order, it is bound to be counter-productive. The government should involve all actors in the process of drawing up a practical agenda for action to improve law and order. The actors include the major opposition political party and other parties, the CSOs and all those who have the issue of law and order close to their hearts.

Elusive quest for political stability: Any one familiar with Bangladesh's political history will agree that the quest for political stability has unfortunately been an elusive one since 1975. Martial laws coming in quick succession left a shocking effect on the state of politics and society from which, it was hoped, the country would recover after 1991. This did not happen primarily because of the unending process of confrontational politics, criminalisation of politics, politicisation of civil service and what not. All these have resulted in a highly debilitating effect on the political and social order.

Donors' threats: The governmental response to the donors' threat has been met, if only partially, in speeding up the constitution of the selection committee for recommending persons to be appointed as chairman and members of the independent anti-corruption commission. But this is no consolation for the vast majority of citizens who continue to live in an environment of physical insecurity. The threat to withdraw support of additional funds appears somewhat misplaced. Additional support is badly needed for the law-enforcing agencies. Without serious supporting measures backed by resources, there is little hope for the improvement of law and order. Conversely, even if resources are available, it will not lead to positive results unless the coercive powers of the state are used within the bounds of law and constitutional rights of citizens.

The way forward: It appears to many that Bangladesh is caught in the vicious cycle of bad governance, political instability and alarming downslide in law and order. The cycle needs to be broken which will need specific actions rather than rhetoric.

A M M Shawkat Ali, PhD is former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.