Time for a constitutional convention?

Reform of the electoral process was a key component of the slate of reforms recently announced by fourteen political parties and the demand has been reiterated even by parties who are not part of this loose alliance. So there is no question that electoral reform is front and centre on the nation's agenda.

The bad news is that there is as yet no indication that the government will consent to pass into law any kind of reform package, or that if they do, that the main opposition will consider this sufficient.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The government has evinced zero interest in even the most basic and indispensable reform proposals, even though it is by now perfectly clear that any election held without these will lack any credibility.

The principal opposition, for its part, has demanded an entire slate of reforms, of which election reform is but one component, and has shown no inclination that it will accept anything less than the full panoply of its reform package.

Looking on the bright side, it seems as though there is fruitful ground for compromise which might give both sides a fair measure of what they want, which would permit reasonably credible elections to be held, and which would help advance representative democracy in the country, and thus be good for all of us.

On the other hand, this is Bangladesh, the country where mature compromise and statesmanlike conciliation come to die. Chances are that neither side will give an inch.

So where does this leave us? It is ironic to think that where a clearly defined path to avoid conflict and confrontation is available that our leaders are so unlikely to take it. What seems far more likely is a damaging showdown which will benefit no one and once again tarnish the country's image in the eyes of the world.

Success for the government means holding elections under the current dispensation, regardless of who turns out to contest them. The four-party alliance would obviously win any such election, whence it would claim a mandate, and then blithely go on to attempt to rule the resulting fractious powder-keg of a country with an iron hand.

Success for the main opposition would mean government capitulation to its slate of reform demands and an election under the resulting dispensation, which it may well win. More likely, however, they will not be able to force the government's hand and will take to the streets to oppose both -- any election held without them and any government elected thereto.

Thus, if things continue along the way they are headed, we can look forward to a full-blown constitutional crisis, and there is every possibility that we will end up with the worst of both worlds. The opposition will not be strong enough to force the government to hold elections to its satisfaction (in contrast to 1996) and the government will lack the credibility to govern effectively or even to ensure that its writ runs throughout the country.

Is there any alternative?

There are two. The most elegant and practicable one is a compromise on reform of the electoral process. I believe that a strong and independent election commission, with its own permanent secretariat from which the returning officers could be culled, an accurate voter list, and the institution of measures such as voter ID cards and electronic voting could ensure that the coming elections are fair and above reproach.

This is unlikely to happen.

In the first place, the government, with typical short-sightedness, lacks the statesmanship to see how such measures would benefit both them and the country. Similarly, the main opposition has already stated that it finds the chief election commissioner unacceptable, and so is unlikely to be mollified by any solution that is premised mainly on empowering the EC. Nor does this solution address the issue of the appointment of the head of the caretaker government, which appears to be a non-negotiable demand.

The second solution is even more unlikely to ever come to fruition, but if the goal is to try to perfect our political system, or at the very least to make it more effective, is an idea that is long overdue.

Now might not be a bad time for a constitutional convention.

In the first place, the caretaker government reforms proposed by the opposition cannot be enacted except by amending the constitution.

This can be done by the government like in 1996, but that was hurried through, and I would argue that if we are going to amend the constitution then there is something to be said for taking our time and doing it right, and to also address other issues of constitutional significance at the same time.

The chances of this happening are more or less zero, I concede.

But if a year from now we are still mired in political gridlock that is getting more violent and ugly by the day (as will very possibly be the case), then it may not look like such a bad option for the government to amend the constitution to hand power over to a caretaker government to convene a constitutional convention to try to sort out some of the problems we face in our democracy.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this idea. We are only 34 years old as a nation and our democracy is only really 14 years old and still evolving (one hopes). There is no shame in admitting that democracy has not worked out as effectively as thought and that it might be an idea to see how best to amend the system to try to finesse the dysfunctional political realities.

There can be no question but that democracy in Bangladesh is dysfunctional and that we need to give this problem closer scrutiny rather than assume that because we are notionally a democratic country that all is or ultimately will be well. Even if we are able to hold credible elections, many of the problems in the body politic will remain.

The main dysfunction is that we do not have a functional parliament. The opposition has either routinely been denied the opportunity to speak in parliament or has not consented to even show up, or both.

Furthermore, every corner of the country from the civil service to the judiciary to the police is politicised. Projects green-lighted or not, flood relief distributed or not, and primary school teachers are hired or not, based on political affiliation.

The government has even admitted these dysfunctions. The finance minister on record as conceding that corruption is endemic, and the fact that under the law even a bank robber (think about it) can bring his money into the legitimate economy with no questions asked speaks volumes.

The very existence of Rab that has extra-judicially executed over three hundred to date is a tacit admission that the law and order situation is out of control and that the regular police and judiciary is corrupted apparently beyond repair.

Everyone complains about the role that money and muscle play in elections. Everyone complains about politicisation. Everyone complains about corruption. So in a sense no one is saying that nothing needs to be done. We all seem to agree that dramatic changes would be a good thing.

That said, with us heading towards a political showdown, now seems as good a time as any to see if we can fix some of these problems that ail us, if not once and for all, at least for the next decade, rather than accepting that there is no alternative to continue sliding further and further into dysfunction.

This is why now would be a good time for a constitutional convention. Let's put it all on the table for discussion.

Let's revisit Article 70 of the constitution which prevents floor-crossing and ensures that parliament remains nothing more than a rubber stamp for the executive. Let's look at whether politics could be improved with a bicameral legislature. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of proportional representation. Let's look at the parliamentary rules of procedure and see if we can come up with a system that permits more voice to the opposition.

No one is arguing that this would be an easy task. I do not know if there is any solution to the politicisation and polarisation and winner-takes-all mentality that is at the heart of the sickness within our body politic. But unless you think that government in Bangladesh is functional in any meaningful way, then a constitutional convention to try to root out the dysfunctions might not be a bad idea.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.