How to make the caretaker system work

The caretaker system is a novel system suiting perhaps the genius of the people of this country alone. It is somewhat paradoxical that an elected party which governs the country for long five years has no jurisdiction to hold election to the Jatiya Sangsad for the simple reason that it is not trustworthy enough to hold free and fair elections. Instead of addressing the issues responsible for unfair election, our politicians opted for this novel system.

Novelty seems to be the name of the game of politics in this country. Our politicians devise novel ways of staging protests against government. They boycott parliament sessions for days and months together. They organise long marches. They issue ultimatums to an elected government to resign and fix a date predicting the fall of the government. They form a human chain from one part of the country to another. Who knows, there may be an aerial display like this some day!

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

We have so far had two elections under the caretaker government system. In 1996, AL won the election and formed the government with the support of Ershad's Jatiya Party. BNP called the election unfair and accused AL of having snatched away their victory by vote rigging. In 2001, it was BNP-Jamat coalition which won the election and formed the government. This time AL cried foul. So much for fair elections under the caretaker government.

Now that AL and almost all other opposition political parties are demanding reform of the caretaker system, and the general mood of the civil society is also for reform, it will be worthwhile discussing the circumstances under which the caretaker government system came into being and also the inherent drawbacks in the system, necessitating reforms.

It is an irony that while BNP fought the movement for caretaker government tooth and nail, it was the BNP which had to enact the law for the caretaker government system in the end. Following the infamous Magura-2 by-election under the then BNP government, the entire mainstream opposition parties including Jamat-e-Islam, the present coalition government partner, launched a protracted movement demanding general election under a neutral caretaker government. But the BNP was then as adamant in resisting the demand for introduction of the system as it is now against reforming the system.

It was only after the wholesale boycott of the February 1996 general election by all the main opposition parties that the BNP government was forced to accept the demand for non-party caretaker government and enact laws accordingly. Thus, BNP fathered the non-party caretaker government system as we find it now, but it did so under duress of a sort, and did it the BNP way.

AL accepted it as offered. To my reckoning there could be two reasons for ready acceptance by AL. One, it perhaps did no homework on the guidelines and the shape of the caretaker government it was agitating for. This is quite typical of AL, as I believe that even now AL has not done any research on the system and has no concrete suggestions for reforming the system. Two, even if they did, they did not want to waste any time in going for the election and thus capturing the seat of power.

While there is no gainsaying that the caretaker government system has succeeded in reducing major irregularities and malpractice in elections it has conducted, the system has some serious shortcomings, which if not redressed in earnest now, will soon render the caretaker system as partisan as any elected political government of today.

We also need to do some sort of political cleansing in that the Jatiya Sangsad must be freed from people with black money and muscle power. This is the only way to improve the quality of the elected political government. No elected political government will do it. It has to be done by a caretaker government. Unless this is done, we will not have, and we cannot expect to have, an elected political government in the foreseeable future which can be trusted to give the nation even a modicum of free, fair, and credible elections. And we cannot continue experimenting with this novel and undemocratic system for an indefinite period either. So, with these ends in view, we must seek to reform the non-party caretaker government law.

Drawbacks and

suggested reforms

The provision regarding the appointment of Chief Advisor by the President is seriously flawed in that when the appointment is limited to a particular retired chief justice as the case is, then it is likely that the person so appointed may not the best and most acceptable among the retired justices. We may end up with someone with a partisan outlook and disputed background. Besides, since a particular retired chief justice as the potential Chief Advisor of a future caretaker government remains focused, his acceptability or lack of it by the government or the opposition is likely to be an issue, which may mar the political atmosphere. As a remedy, we should have a panel of all retired Chief Justices (except those who have already served as Chief Advisors) and all retired Justices of the Appellate Division from which the President in consultation with both the government and the main opposition should pick someone as the Chief Advisor.

With regard to the appointment of Advisors also, the President should act on the advice of the Chief Advisor and consult both the government and the main opposition and appoint Advisors acceptable to both the government and the main opposition.

But what has the most debilitating effect on the care taker government system as a whole is the erosion of the executive authority of the caretaker government by taking away the Ministry of Defence and the controlling authority of the Defence Services from the caretaker government and the Chief Advisor and placing them under the President. Thus the caretaker government has been left at the mercy of the President, as it needs the services of the Armed Forces to maintain law and order in the country especially during election. As if this was not enough, a provision has been made allowing the President to assume the powers of the Chief Advisor of the caretaker government, should the President fail to appoint the Chief Advisor as per provisions laid down.

New provisions placing the Ministry of Defence and the controlling authority of the Defence Forces under the Chief Advisor of the caretaker government should be enacted.

Since it has been made mandatory to hold election to Jatiya Sangsad within 90 days after parliament is dissolved, the tenure of the caretaker government extends generally a little over three months, which by any reckoning is a very short time for any government to be effective and authoritative, no matter how transitory the government is. Imagine the magnitude of the task the caretaker government has at hand. It has to run the day-to-day affairs of the country and then hold a free and fair election to Jatiya Sangsad within a time frame.

Obviously it has to clear the decks and create a climate of peace and confidence for all to participate in election process after a political government has ruled the country for five years and made every effort to leave its political stamp behind on every conceivable segment of the state machinery which it tried to make subservient to the government. There is a clear need for the administration to be recast and imbued with the spirit of impartiality and evenhanded justice and the rule of law.

The Election Commission, which has deliberately not been allowed by all the successive governments over the years to play its due constitutional role to hold free and fair election, needs to invigorated and strengthened so that it can function effectively. The voters' list will need to be updated. The electoral laws may need to be revised. Most importantly, new legislation needs to be enacted in the form of government ordinance debarring bank loan defaulters, smugglers, extortionists, listed criminals and terrorists, people owning properties and having bank balance disproportionate to their known source of income, godfathers of terrorists, etc from becoming members of parliament.

This is all a tall order and the government can hardly do justice to itself in three months time. Besides the government for such a short stint can hardly command loyalty and obedience of the administration which is a precondition for any government to be effective. Knowing full well that the caretaker government is only for three months, the officers and staff of the administration are liable to adopt a go slow attitude and look forward to the new elected government to be installed which will hinder smooth functioning of the government.

It is therefore suggested that relevant provisions of law be amended to hold election to Jatiya Sangsad under caretaker government within 180 days instead of 90 days after parliament has been dissolved. Generally, people also feel relatively safer and happier during the rule of the caretaker government as the political big-wigs and political armed cadres cannot interfere with the normal functioning of the civil administration, particularly the police. So, in the interest of the people living under somewhat improved conditions of law and order and enjoying relative peace it would be worthwhile extending the duration of this interregnum as well.

Reforms of the caretaker government system as suggested above are neither anti- government nor pro-opposition. These reforms, if carried out in earnest, will only make the system work to the benefit of this country as it will pave the way for smooth transition to a truly elected democratic government which can be trusted for good governance and for holding credible elections.

The author is a former Military Secretary to the President.