Caretaker government system needs no reform

It may be recalled that in 1991 BNP couldn't have formed the government without the support of Jamaat-e-Islami. In 1996 the same Jamaat-e-Islami supported Awami League and Ershad's Jatiya Party to initiated a mass movement for the caretaker government system and despite Begum Zia's vehement objections and utterances like 'only infant and insane are impartial' couldn't stop the caretaker system of government from becoming a reality. During that period the mass movement was so intense and violent that Begum Zia had to swallow her own words to take extra initiative to amend the constitution to accommodate the caretaker bill during her short lived second term of government in 1996. We then thought we solved the problem for good and so it was until now.

In 2004, we are back to square one after having two internationally acclaimed and accepted free and fair general elections under caretaker government system. In one election Sheikh Hasina's AL won and in the other 4-party Alliance won. When Awami League won nobody raised fingers and said it was not free and fair election. But when the 4-party alliance won AL and others started finding faults in the caretaker system forgetting that even though 4-party alliance won majority seats in the Sangsad, the AL improved their popular vote percentage from 37 to 43.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It is sheer strategy of 4-party alliance that helped them bag more than two-third Sangsad seats and form the government. It is also to be noted here that until Sheikh Hasina raised the issue of changes in the caretaker system about two months' back none had thought of changes of any form in the caretaker government system. It is only after their defeat in the general election in 2001, Awami League realised that they need to reform the present caretaker government system to make it neutral. Until then the people of Bangladesh were told that everybody including the 'foreigners praised our caretaker system' and 'some countries even thought of adopting this system as a model.'

In support of the demand of AL for reforms in caretaker government system Mr Shahjahan, a former Chief Editor of BSS wrote in an article "None could think that he (Justice Latifur Rahman) would put to shame the party which chose him as chief adviser of the caretaker government ..." It would look as though that AL chose him as caretaker chief with the hope to win the election. I do not know if Awami League had such hope in the back of their mind, but it is true that they appointed Mr MA Sayed as Chief Election Commissioner and Mr Safiur Rahman (Janater Mancha) fame as election commissioner in the face of stiff opposition by BNP. During 2001 election AL had the President, Chief Adviser of the caretaker government and Chief Election Commissioner of their choice yet the result did not come AL's way. Three years after the election AL has realised that caretaker government system in the present form is unsuitable and threatens that it may not join the election if it is held under the present caretaker system. The more AL says against the caretaker system today the more it proves that Begum Zia was correct yesterday.

Sheikh Hasina, AL, their 14-party alliance and many others believe, and justifiably so, that the 4-party alliance government is attempting to put a person of their liking in the position of the chief adviser of the next caretaker government by extending the retiring age of judges. Sheikh Hasina alleged in her press briefing that by so doing BNP is targeting to put a person to the position of Chief Adviser, who once was their international affairs secretary. If BNP is really doing so, it must be living in fool's paradise. Didn't they see what AL achieved in 2001 election? They had their elected President, Chief Adviser and Chief Election Commissioner all together during the election and see what could they achieve? It is hoped that BNP didn't start believing, as AL wants them and us to believe, that they won the election because of the caretaker chief. It is therefore clear that any attempt by BNP to influence selection of chief adviser will only prove AL's contention. It is for BNP to concentrate more on fulfilling their election pledges instead of wasting time on whom to appoint as chief adviser of next caretaker government.

The biggest lesson of history is that nobody learns from history and this is proved time and again by our major political parties. It seems that the parties, including AL and BNP, forgot Art 7(1) of the constitution which says all power lies with the people. As it is, the people are forgotten immediately after the election and nobody cares much about them, except while using them in hartals or other form of agitations. The political parties so far failed to understand the extent of power the people have and that it is the will of the people which matters in general elections and not the chief adviser. They in fact voted for freedom from Pakistan in 1970 election. One mustn't forget that the wrath of voters uprooted the Muslim League in 1954 from this part of the sub-continent. The majority of people taught BNP a lesson in June 1996 and AL a lesson in October 2001 for their share of misdeeds.

Although the main opposition party Awami League raised the issue of changes in caretaker government system, they have not yet come out with any concrete form or idea of the changes until Sheikh Hasina spoke after her return from tour abroad. Ever since Awami League expressed their desire to change the caretaker government system, a number of articles have come out in the national dailies. Mr. Shahjahan in his article suggested that Clause 5 of Art 58 (c) of constitution should be made the main clause of appointing Chief Adviser i.e. clause 3 of Art. 58(c) should be replaced by clause 5. Clause 5 of Art. 58(c) stipulates that if no retired judge of the appellate division is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the president shall, after consultations, as far as practicable, with major political parties, appoint the chief adviser from among citizens of Bangladesh who are qualified to be appointed as advisers under the article. Sheikh Hasina in her press conference, without quoting the Articles or clauses of the constitution, said that the next chief of the caretaker government will have to be appointed through political consensus. But the million dollar question is: will the parties of the country jointly be able to find an impartial adult?

I have grave doubt. So have others. In 1996 such person was the immediate past former chief justice of Bangladesh. In eight years time he is no longer acceptable. Therefore the proposal to amend the constitution is not viable. In this connection humbly I would like to draw the attention of all concerned and particularly that of Sheikh Hasina to the Article 58GA (7) KHA of the constitution. The Article says: person who is not a member of any political party or its affiliated body can be appointed as adviser or chief adviser of the caretaker government. If BNP has created a situation to appoint a party man to the position of chief adviser, AL has the option to challenge the appointment under Article 58GA (7) KHA in the court of law. They may also take preemptive measure if and when BNP goes for such appointment. Hence we need no amendment to the constitution.

Instead I propose that we appoint a strong willed Chief Election Commissioner through political consensus, who can hold free fair election in the country under the powers already given to him or if need be by giving him more power. However, our problem is not the dearth of power, but lack of courage and inability to use them. We need person of integrity and courage as our Chief Election Commissioner, who will use powers given to him. Our constitution gives him enough power to do his job properly. His use of the power without fear or favour will solve all our problems. He must have the courage to set aside the election results for any irregularity of any individual in election irrespective of party affiliation. The members thus elected will be more of a legislator than a secretariat practitioner.