Time to stand on principle

The efficacy of the caretaker government came under strident criticism of the Awami League very soon after its dismal show in the last general election. Of late the matter has been whipped up again by the Awami League and like-minded parties, particularly after another political blunder, that of the April 30 deadline that turned out to be near farce.

No system is entirely foolproof and beyond manipulation by those with ill motives and bent upon doing so. The system of caretaker government is unique in that nowhere in a democratic dispensation does the system repose the task of conducting a democratic election on an unelected group or individual. This in itself is a slur on our polity and political system, on our credibility as a democratic nation, and it has exposed the inability of the incumbent to hold elections that will appear to be free and fair to other parties. And the whole system evolved only because the Awami League did not trust the BNP, the incumbent party, to conduct a fair and free election in 1996.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Mr. Kibria writes: "However, in enacting the law on the subject, she (Begum Zia) did not consult the Awami League. In fact, as far as I can recall, she passed the law in the Parliament hurriedly without any prior discussion or consultation with political parties, lawyers or members of the civil society."

I am not aware of any instance of the Awami League exchanging ideas with the BNP or civil society on a new legislation while it was in power. As for giving the BNP a free go at that time, much of the blame must lie at the door of the Awami League. That it did not participate in the February 1996 elections provided the BNP with the opportunity to indulge in shenanigans related to the enactment of the caretaker government law.

Mr. Kibria writes: "As a result, although the main concept of a caretaker government was accep-ted, the law remained defective and incomplete. The first caretaker government was established for the election in June 1996. The flaws in the law and loopholes were detected even at that time."

This is what begs the question. If the flaws were detected at that time, may I ask who was in power following the 1996 elections? Pray tell us Mr. Kibria why did your party not take any measure to rectify the mistakes that you were prudent enough to identify but did not do anything about. Was it diffidence or sheer opportunism that made you turn a blind eye to the system that was, according to your definition, full of loopholes? Was it that the Awami League had won the election and thought that it would win the future ones also?

The call for reforming the caretaker government law, coming as it does, in the wake of the Awami League's electoral debacle of 2001, gives one the impression of the Awami League being a bad loser. For it, no system is good enough unless it is one that can ensure the party's victory in the election.

Mr. Kibria has excoriated the chief of the last caretaker government Mr. Latifur Rahman for serving, according to him, a "particular party's interests." Let us not forget that Justice Latifur Rahman was chosen to head the caretaker government during the Awami League's term in power. It seems that anything that is not to Awami League's liking is branded as being ulterior motivated or to a "particular party's interests."

This is exactly where his argument of a pool of individuals wherefrom one would be chosen to head the interim arrangement falls

flat. What if that particular person does not do Awami League's bidding after being selected on the basis of consensus? Would he then be termed a "traitor" quite like the appellation that Justice Latifur Rahman was invested with by the Awami League leadership after the 2000 election, or would the Awami League again suggest new reforms to the laws? How can one be sure that the individual so selected would not be biased to one or the other party? How can one truly, as Mr. Kibria wants to, "reassure the political parties that the chief advisor and his colleagues are truly neutral?"

Mr. Kibria's suggestion that the head of the caretaker government be selected on the basis of discussions between "both sides" has merits, but I cannot but take issue with him when he assumes in his "both sides" that there are only two parties in the country that need to be taken cognisance of. He forgets that there are other parties that have notched up a significant number of seats in the parliament.

One cannot argue with the suggestions that there are loopholes in the current legislation that can be

woven into a net. The division of power in particular was done with motives that cannot be termed as entirely virtuous. But such loopholes had existed while the Awami League was in power. Granted that it did not have the required majority in the parliament to effect changes in the laws, but it did not exhibit its honest intention either by even broaching the subject of change in the said legislation.

The BNP on its part has given enough grounds to question its intentions insofar as the selection of the next head of the caretaker government is concerned. There is no harm in increasing the age limit of judges of the Supreme Court, but the criticism of the Awami League as to the timing and motivation of the new age limit cannot be ruled out.

I am certain the BNP is also aware of the loopholes in the current law related to the caretaker government. And one cannot put it past the BNP, or for that matter any political party in Bangladesh, not to exploit the loopholes to its advantage.

It would be wise for the political parties to address the lacunae and rectify them, not with any parochial motives, but to make the system foolproof and effective. On that count one does not understand the reluctance of the BNP to discuss the issue with other political parties.

It is high time the political parties worked on principles, something that is missing from their lexicon, rather than on petty party interest and blatant expediency.

As for the Awami League, it would do well for it to prepare for the next elections instead of crying hoarse on issues which appear to most as being motivated by petty parochial interests.

S M Abdur Rahman is a researcher.

The Daily Star invites its readers to write in and share their views on this vital national issue.