Caretaker government: The incumbency and the incumbent

After many centuries, King Bhojraj recovered the throne and made preparations to use it in his court. But the dolls of the throne objected. Thirty-two dolls told as many stories to depict the greatness of Vikramaditya. All of them asked Bhojraj one question: Do you consider yourself eligible for a throne, which was given to a king of such greatness? The stories depicted the wisdom, courage, sense of justice, love for people, and perspicacity of the great king. Bhojraj considered himself ineligible for the throne and kept it away again and built a temple over it as a mark of reverence.

The legends of Vikramaditya and Bhojraj describe the concept of the incumbent and incumbency. Incumbency originates from the state, which gives power and authority to it. But, respect and trust have to be earned by the incumbent. perhaps, Justice Latifur Rahman has missed this point.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Power and authority provide the drive and stability respectively to an incumbency. But if the incumbent fails to earn the respect from the people, the incumbency, and through that the state, becomes unstable and weak. A person who cannot acquire respect cannot command authority, and ultimately loses grip on power.

Respect has to be earned. One cannot command it. It is earned in return for love of the people. Power without love and commitment to the welfare generates fear, which is returned as hatred. We have seen the exercise of power without discretion as well as the people's reaction to that, time and again, in this country. Do we need any new experience?

Fear begets hatred. Hatred for the incumbent is transformed into that for the incumbency. This ultimately breaks down the chain of command.

An incumbent in the highest responsibility of the government should keep aside his or her ideological considerations. The incumbency puts on one the onus to serve the whole people, not a party. But that is not in practice in Bangladesh.

The law of the Caretaker Government does not speak well of our practice of democracy. This is politically a regressive step. In Bangladesh, there are serious deficiencies in the understanding of the nature of the society, state and government, and their relationship to each other. The state is an organ of the society. Government is meant to run this organ in the interest of the whole people. For this, the people give mandate to a party or a group. This is a sacred trust. But when in power, parties or alliances are in the habit of forgetting this. The government and the state are treated as private domains.

To frame a perfect law is impossible, and to have laws without many flaws is difficult. This is remedied by judicious application of discretion. That perhaps is the reason why the person in charge is called a justice.

In his rejoinder, Justice Latifur Rahman could not conceal his dislike for the party which had been in power before his assumption of the responsibility of the Chief Advisor of the Caretaker Government. In his reaction he openly expressed his wrath against the party by declaring that it is the repository of "misdeeds (criminality, corruption, terrorism)." A biased mind seldom succeeds in grasping the reality.

Jurists say that the principles of justice operate from behind a veil of ignorance. When awareness in unavoidable, technical ignorance is called for. Justice Latifur Rahman, might have too many things in mind . For the sake of honesty in the concrete sense, he could have avoided the job because with all those things in mind, it was impossible to be impartial.

Once a Bangladeshi politician said that only a child or a lunatic can remain neutral. However, the incumbent of the Chief Advisor here needs impartiality and a spirit of bipartisanship, not neutrality. Justice Latifur Rahman was fortunate to have two very eminent predecessors: Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed and Justice Habibur Rahman. They were rather admired after successful completion of their tenures as Chief Advisors of the Caretaker Governments. Justice Habibur Rahman averted a crisis created by the Head of the State. There was admiration for him all around. But Justice Latifur Rahman, immediately after assuming the reins of power created tumult in the society. Wasn't it deviation from the tradition created by his eminent predecessors?

To break a tradition is risky. It needs courage as well as caution. One should not be rash to drift far enough to lose one's credibility. One also should have an honest and sincere end in view. Such acts should be explainable rationally. He has not explained his position before this. His rejoinder does not exonerate him but rather entangles him more.

The Election Commission is a constitutional organ of the state. This is not the property either of the government or the party in power. But astonishingly, the incumbents in charge of this commission and all other constitutional organs of the state yield to the pressure of the government and the party in power. Is it due to lack of understanding of the relationship between the incumbent and the incumbency or disregard?

An all-pervading sense of partisanship appears to have overwhelmed us. The society is divided between "we" and "they." The prime identity of a citizen today is: "our man" or "their man." The "man of the people" has no place. This is too bad.

In 1972, we had a near-perfect constitution. But for us, it appeared to be too hot to handle. We started to amend it. Amendments and modifications have changed the constitution beyond recognition. The law of the Caretaker Government, if further changed, would not be of much significance under the circumstances.

When the law was passed, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was considered to be a "safe" incumbent for the incumbency of the Chief Advisor of the Caretaker Government. Wrongly or rightly, Justice Latifur Rahman as the incumbent has created uncertainty in this regard in certain circles.

They now look for a "safe" incumbent. It would be unjust to blame them of opportunism. That the credibility of such a high incumbency has been questioned has unearthed some deep-seated malady. Since long back, in Bangladesh, the incumbents have not been doing justice to their incumbencies. That may be the crux of the problem.

Mr. Kibria has put forward his party's standpoint. The Awami League was in the government during the last term. There are critics of AL. But amongst the people of Bangladesh, there are millions who do not agree with Justice Latifur Rahman and look forward to the leadership of this party to bring forth a significant change in the country for the welfare of the people. No one, however important, should forget that. For in democracy, only the people are supreme.

Dr. Satyen Aditya is a freelance writer.