Opposition reform formula

The reasons why all political parties should be wary of short-circuiting the processes of initiating and carrying out reform are obvious. First of all, the need for reform agenda, in one form or the other, has exercised the minds of the civil society, the media and the community for a long time now. The Daily Star itself started the debate as early as in January this year on political and electoral reforms by way of eliciting expert opinion on the whole range of issues inclusive of the caretaker government system. All this means that a national consensus has to emerge on the reform agenda before these are actually adopted.

Second, and perhaps more important point for consideration is that the nation cannot afford the roller-coaster ride through outcries for reform every decade or so. The electoral system is of such critical import to our democratic polity and national life that it cannot be left to the vagaries of political changes from time to time. It has to be durable.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

That said, we address the opposition-suggested reform of the election commission and electoral processes separately from their formulae for caretaker government reform. What clearly enjoy wide public support in our view are the opposition demands for election commission and electoral law reforms such as independence and full financial authority for the EC, hiring and firing authority of the commission, updating the voters' list, electronic voting system and voter ID card, black-money holders' and loan defaulters' ineligibility for polls, compulsory furnishing of educational qualifications, financial and criminal records and other candidature information, etc. And, there cannot be any second opinion about the desirability of consulting the opposition parties before the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President.

The caretaker government reform questions are much more complex. The relative merits and demerits concerning the various proposals need to be further examined, more thoroughly gone into; for which, we suggest, extensive and sustained public debate should be held.

The government's outright rejection of the opposition proposals and its rigid positioning are clearly impolitic and self-defeating in approach. Their insistence that the opposition place their proposals in parliament would have carried greater credibility if they had shown sensitivity to opposition demands in the past. Given the overall necessity for taking the opposition's proposals as a starting point to come to grips with the reform issue, a dialogue must be initiated by the government.