The caretaker system and necessity for reform

The election is conducted by the Election Commission with the assistance of the government functionaries, who are neutral under the caretaker government, while they are under pressure under party governments. The Election Commission and party government cannot see eye to eye and the latter do not help the former in the conduct of elections. The case is otherwise under the caretaker government. So, side by side with bringing about any change in the caretaker government, necessary reforms in the Election Commission are a since qua non. The Commission should be independent in all spheres of its activities and should have its own officers to conduct elections, instead of depending on government functionaries. So long as that is not done, the judicial officers of the separate Judiciary, may replace the government functionaries.

The reform of the Election Commission should be done simultaneously with the democratisation of the political parties. If there is no democracy in the political parties, how can they claim for democracy in the country? "Heal thyself first," should be the motto. From the prevalent political scenario in the country, the people cannot expect anything tangible. Both the mainstreams, which also include Jatiya Party and Jamaat, have nothing to offer to the people for a bright future. They are the two sides of the same coin and do the same thing, while in power or in opposition. The people of the country are earnestly waiting for alternative "streams" to rescue them from the political quagmire of the mainstreams.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Justice Latifur Rahman was after the choice of the Awami League. But he acted quite neutrally in conducting the business of the government. His Council of Advisors incidentally included two nominees of the Awami League. The rest were of his choice, or included some nominees of the BNP. The Administration of the caretaker government had to undo some of the partisan postings in the Administration by the Awami League in its last days in office. The much talked about transfer of some 13 Secretaries from their posts was done to make the administration neutral. These officers were thought to have been posted by the Awami League to serve its purpose in the election. All the apparently pro-Awami League officers at the District and Upazila levels were withdrawn and new officers were posted in their places. The cases of the then Principal Secretary and Establishment Secretary are instances in point. The former was well known to be pro-Awami League while in office. He declared that he would retire on time and would not accept any contractual appointment. But he was appointed on contract and gladly continued as the Principal Secretary. Was there any other alternative to the neutral government but to transfer him? The post of the Establishment Secretary was filled up by a junior officer, who was promoted as an Additional Secretary, much ahead of his senior batch-mates. He was said to be a close relative of the then Prime Minister. What would have been the role of the partisan secretary, who was in charge of transfer and posting of all level of officers in the cadre services under the Establishment Ministry? We should not behave like a one-eyed stag in passing our judgement against anybody.

The Election Commission was also not spared. The Chief Election Commissioner was appointed by them. So, was Mr M Saifur Rahman of Janatar Mancha fame. To crown them all two-retired District Judges were appointed as Election Commissioners, the posts supposed to be filled up by Justices of the High Court. What might have been the purposes to be served by all these? However, these gentlemen played their roles neutrally, thanks to them all.

The vast majority of the people are not either with the Awami League or the BNP permanently. They cast their votes according to their free choice. They elect a party whom they think to be fit for running the affairs of the government. They swing, like a pendulum, to either of the parties. Both the parties may each have 25 per cent of the voters as their vote banks, but the remaining 50 per cent of the voters are neutral and they cast their votes on merit. If these 50 per cent of the voters do not choose either of the political parties, these 25 per cent vote banks will not count a fig. There may be an alternative thinking and swing in that way. So, they should rectify their mistakes of the past. The vast majority of the teeming million are not with them permanently and any kind of coalition cannot guarantee for keeping them in power or help them sit in the seat of power.

At present there is a silent murmuring going on in the country for a wholesale change, not this way or that, for a better and brighter future. This may not be a choice between the BNP-led or Awami League-led coalitions. People cannot be treated as a flock of sheep to jump with this or that combine.

After the election was over the Awami League began criticising the caretaker government by pronouncing that it was given an amanat, but it failed to return it to them. This does not speak well of political leaders regarding verdict of the people. They have not developed the mentality of accepting defeat in an election in good grace and expect that the verdict will always be in their favour. The country is not a fiefdom of either of the two parties and they should not rest assured of returning to power continuously. The people should have multiple choices to elect their lawmakers to form the government after a fixed time.

Justice Latifur Rahman proved himself truly neutral, like his predecessors, in running the affairs of the government and holding the election in a free and fair manner. He had to undo the misdeeds of the Awami League government by reposting the officers of their liking and bringing about neutral machinery to conduct the election.

It seems the caretaker government was introduced in a hurry by the party that did not believe in its concept on demand of another party which was not consulted in its introduction. Things done in haste are never done right. So there are scopes for its reform. All political parties should now ponder about how to bring about changes in the system. It is an uphill task and should be taken in right earnest by all well-meaning people of the country.

We may consider change in appointing as Chief Advisor by the President, not only the last retiring Chief Justice alone, but also from among all the former Chief Justices to be acceptable to the political parties. The President may choose the Chief Advisor by consulting the political parties. We must discard the distrust and malice among the political parties. They must not also think themselves as the sole depository of the trust of the people. And they must not take their opponents as enemies. They should look beyond and see that the erstwhile enemies, India and Pakistan, are ready to talk to each other and trying to improve their relations. This will lead to improvement of millions of people in both countries. Can't we take a lesson from them and bury the hatchet and try to improve the lot of our own people? Let good sense, and not rancour, prevail in our political arena.

The political parties should not consider themselves as rulers of the people, but as servants of the people. Hence, there is the need for consensus among them for change in the caretaker system.

Md. Mosharraf Ullah, a retired additional Secretary, is now the Registrar of University of South Asia.