A CEC, two presidents and a ubiquity of questions

As if that were not enough, he informed the country at around the same time that it really did not matter who said what about his way of doing business. In effect, what Justice Aziz has been telling us is that the country is a vast arena peopled with barbarians, the likes of whom need to be brought into the fold of civilization by the likes of him. That certainly throws up an interesting situation.

And the situation is simply the reality that the Chief Election Commissioner does not recognize the priorities he and his colleagues have forced upon the country. The matter is not one of teaching. Neither is it one of legalities. Indeed, if we were to focus on the legal aspects of the conundrum, the CEC and his colleagues have thrown around and over us, we would be pushed into a set of circumstances that neither we nor the Election Commission would appreciate.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

When the CEC and his election commissioners studiously ignored the directives of the High Court relating to the electoral rolls through going ahead with a preparation of a new voters list, the theme of legality was carefully pushed aside. Now, of course, there is something here that speaks to us of a contempt of court. When the judiciary serves a notice on an individual or set of individuals, it is a manifestation of the principle that the law of the land is supreme.

Apparently, Justice Aziz and his colleagues did not agree, which is why it became necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene. If any reiteration of the principle of law was needed in order for the Chief Election Commissioner to be induced into retracing his steps, of course along the right tracks, here it was.

Justice Aziz, with an alacrity that surprised even his dwindling band of supporters, suddenly adopted the position that the Election Commission could not move towards updating the existing electoral rolls before formally receiving a certified copy of the SC judgement. That was surely an admirable act, seeing that the CEC was not one to be influenced or forced into overstepping the bounds of formality. And yet the attitude rankled when you recalled the sheer carelessness with which the earlier move by the High Court against the new electoral rolls had been handled.

The crisis is not yet over, despite the Supreme Court act. A certain degree of petulance has now come into the operations of the Election Commission, with its leading figures and bureaucrats now clearly ordering intending voters to find their way to the nearest election offices and register themselves. The Election Commission, we have been informed in no uncertain terms, will not go from door to door and enlist the names of men and women who can and will vote at the next general elections. When you observe such behaviour on the part of men from whom you expect better, you remind yourself once again that these are strange times you happen to be going through.

An ostrich-like Election Commission, an abrasive set of election officials and a long series of inexplicable behaviour are what assault your sensibilities. The Chief Election Commissioner and his two colleagues, you keep saying to yourself, over and over again, should be making things easier for themselves as well as the country by making for the exit. That they have not done so far is not only disappointing but also outrageous. It is disappointing because we expect individuals of good education and extensive experience to read the writing on the wall and then take such action as will be rendered necessary by such writing. It is outrageous because the Chief Election Commissioner has carefully and systematically been pushing an entire country into a straitjacket from which it can re-emerge into freedom only with much pain.

Justice Aziz, SM Zakaria, and Justice Mahfuzur Rahman have apparently convinced themselves of their infallibility. The constitution of this People's Republic makes it patent that these three men cannot be shut out of their offices unless they agree to go of their own free will. But, yes, there is the small matter of a Supreme Judicial Council coming into play and eventually enabling the President of the Republic to remove the three officials. A cheering prospect? Far from it, for today the presidency of the republic itself wallows in the shadows of mystery.

No, there may not exactly be pandemonium in Bangladesh at this point, but there is the truth that is stranger than fiction. Even if one were not to agree with the notion of the country being home to two presidents (one of them simply happens to be acting out the role of president), one cannot quite wave away the feeling that something is going terribly wrong somewhere.

President Iajuddin Ahmed, we have been led to believe, remains a sick man. That may be so, but since when has a sick President been rendered into a President deprived of protocol? Acting President Jamiruddin Sircar was the fortunate man enjoying the perks that come with being head of state on the day he welcomed President Iajuddin Ahmed back home from Singapore. The presidential standard was on Sircar's vehicle, while Iajuddin Ahmed traveled to the Combined Military Hospital from the airport almost in the manner of a former president.

Now, of course all the legal and not so legal luminaries of the existing political dispensation keep hammering the idea of Article 54 into us. That is fine with us. We have no complaints against the constitution (except wishing that it could go back to being the way it was in the euphoric, post-liberation year of 1972). But Article 54 does not educate us on the question of whether a president returning home must remain superseded by an acting president who manned the fort in his absence.

Here is the bare truth: the moment a head of state, in this instance the President of the Republic, returns home either from an official trip or vacation or hospitalization abroad, he resumes his duties without any formality coming into the act. He steps back on the soil of the country as a fully functional President, an event which naturally and automatically pushes the individual who has been acting president back into his original job.

By that measure, Jamiruddin Sircar should have reverted to being Speaker of the Jatiyo Sangsad the moment Iajuddin Ahmed came back home. That did not happen -- and we as a nation are burdened, as we are burdened with an Election Commission we have lost faith in, with the spectacle of two presidents who do not probably know what to do with or about each other.

Let our thoughts not get muddled here. The country is of course big enough for both Iajuddin Ahmed and Jamiruddin Sircar to share its endless spaces. But only one of them can wield presidential authority. There has so far been no clear, unequivocal statement, save only the fact that he needs rest before he can recover, from the government that President Iajuddin Ahmed has been rendered physically or mentally unable or incapacitated in the matter of carrying out his presidential functions and hence has been compelled to transfer authority to the Speaker of the Jatiyo Sangsad.

Besides, it was a healthy President who walked down the gangway of the plane bringing him back from Singapore, shook hands with dignitaries and then traveled down to the CMH, where he looked relaxed on a chair as he spoke to Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. The mystery deepens, our doubts get thicker and our fears, somewhat, about the future of constitutional politics assume darker shapes.

These are times of insidious intent. The continued refusal of Chief Election Commissioner MA Aziz to respect the wishes of the country and go gracefully into the sunset may well push us all into a constitutional crisis of portentous proportions. And the whispers around the presidency can only grow louder and increasingly menacing unless someone in the corridors of power deigns to tell us of the nature of the future Iajuddin Ahmed has before him.

Syed Badrul Ahsan is Executive Editor, Dhaka Courier.