Does the solution rest in the words of desperation?

Ordinary citizens do not know more than what has been published in the local media regarding the so called 'dictation' of the foreign diplomats. In recent days two of the Dhaka-based European diplomats have expressed their opinions vis-à-vis the affairs of the state. The Danish Ambassador, speaking on behalf of the European Commission, termed the death in so-called crossfire as 'extra-judicial killing' and asserted that these 'activities are contrary to good governance and rule of law'. German Ambassador, on the other hand, offered to help in improving the electoral system and very much in tune with the widely accepted perception, opined that the Dhaka-10 by-election was not the best precedence for a free and fair exercise of franchise. These two comments of the diplomats must have irked the PM for the simple fact that the government leaders, from top to bottom, are bent on justifying the killings in crossfire. In the same token, the government is vehemently opposed to any sort of reform of the caretaker government system. The reference of Dhaka-10 by-election might have antagonised the PM even more for the fact that the PM went out of her way to congratulate the so called winner of that by-election notwithstanding the fact that it was dubbed by the local press as one of the biggest mockeries of the electoral process in recent time.

Are those aspects, the free franchise, the rule of law and the human rights internal affairs of a state? Let us look at what the UN charter on Human Rights affirms on these values. Article 21(3) of the UN human rights charter asserts, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures". Article 11(1) declares, "everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence". In the preamble, to justify the formulation of the charter, it underscores, "whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind". It clearly stipulates that the government, however it is constituted, of any sovereign state has no absolute sovereignty to kill its own people disregarding the appropriate and established judicial process.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

As a signatory to the document, the government of Bangladesh is bound to uphold the charter. Adverse repercussions from any sources in regards to the gross violation of any of its articles, are well within the periphery of 'the conscience of mankind', thereby liquidating the political and geographical boundaries of the states. Utterance of the finance minister that, "if the killings by the killers are not human right violation, how can any one term the death of killer a human right violation?", has equated an individual with the state, reflecting the sheer incomprehension on the part of the minister of the rule of law.

The second issue lurks around the 'will of the people' that must be reflected through 'genuine election'. Here again, as envisaged in the UN charter, 'genuine election' is not an internal matter of the state. The German envoy is well within his domain of right, not only as an individual, but the spokesperson of highly respected democratic country to express his solidarity with the aspiration of the people of Bangladesh to extend his country's help to make our 'best system' even better. Caretaker government system, though constituted with a highly noble intent, has suffered a few jolts for two obvious reasons. Firstly, the nation is evenly divided on the neutrality of the last CTG and the mere dismissal of the allegations of the detractors as the 'foul cry' of the losers will be an oversimplification of the problems. Secondly, the government's recently passed law to increase the age limit of the judges has added an extra jolt to the sanctity of the system. It was not too difficult to apprehend the well orchestrated intention of the government to install a particular person as the chief adviser of the next CTG. This manipulation of the government has put the letter and spirit of the system at a dire stake.

The reform proposals put forward by almost all the opposition parties are not to destroy the foundation of the system; rather, it was done apparently to close the loopholes with the intention to make it a full-proof system as much as possible. Dismissing them, without exploring their merit, with the words such as, "the caretaker system exists and will be the same in the constitution", are words of desperation and do not further the cause of the continuous improvement of the electoral process. In fact, article 58 C(5) of the constitution already contains the option clause, which the opposition politicians are demanding to be the only option. Finance Minister's assertion that "it is impossible to choose a chief adviser through consensus", is untenable and may not be credible enough to sell it to the people. In spite of multitudes of shortcomings, we are blessed with many worthy citizens who command the trust of the politicians and people of all spectra. Justice Shahbuddin Ahmed was a glaring example of the process of consensus, which created a blazing precedence that an apolitical person could carry the day in dealing with the politicians..

The PM has asked the main opposition to join parliament and to place their proposal on election reform. This was indeed a good proposal from the leader of the House of a Westminster democracy if only our parliament were anything other than the Louis Kahn's legendary creation. Where the PM during her tenure could not find a single question from the opposition bench worthwhile to respond and the Speaker was not convinced that even the carnage of August 21 an important enough issue for the nation to warrant a discussions in the floor of that august body. Where the presence of the opposition MPs could do little but to alleviate the quorum crisis of the House.

It is very unfortunate that our politicians forget the history so quickly. In our 'democracy', it is not the number of MPs that decides the fate of an issue of public interest. Is there any one in the corridor of power who still remembers that the issue of CTG, put forward by the opposition parties, was passed in the parliament on March 26, 1996 without the existence of a single MP from the opposition?. Is there any in the helm of authority thinking of holding an election without the participation of the main opposition? They will be well-advised, once again, to review the history. Two of our chief executives have shown that arrogance in the past. Alas, history was not very kind to either of them! People at the helm of power very often fail to listen to the voice of the common people. Words of desperation reflect only the lack of merits of the arguments and merely aggravate the problem. Who will be there, at the end, to bear the brunt of that aggravation? Our honourable Prime Minister surely knows the answer far better than any one else.

Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is a Professor and the Head of Mechanical Engineering and Quality Engineering Departments of Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.