For an amended caretaker system
WHILE speaking at a discussion marking the 34th death anniversary of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, Awami League (AL) general secretary and minister for LGRD and cooperatives, Syed Ashraful Islam, said that a national dialogue could be held to decide whether or not to continue with the caretaker government (CG) system, which, according to him, was launched as an experiment, but has failed. He suggested that the Election Commission (EC) could hold a dialogue with all political parties on the matter.
It may be mentioned that prior to the AL general secretary's proposal, deputy leader of the House Sajeda Chowdhury, while taking part in the general discussion on the budget for FY 2009-10 on June 28, called on the lawmakers to strengthen the EC and scrap the CG system. H.M. Ershad, chairman of Jatiya Party, a partner in the AL-led government, asked for cancellation of the CG system, terming it a disgrace and a stigma.
Khandaker Delwar Hossain, general secretary of the main opposition BNP, reacted to the proposal by saying that BNP did not subscribe to the idea of scrapping the CG system. He said that the CG system was still necessary and the AL was planning to hold the next general election under their rule to go power again by manipulating election results.
We are aware of the circumstances that led to the introduction of the CG system, first under chief justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, without any prior constitutional amendments, on December 6, 1990 when president Ershad stepped down, and then formally through the 13th amendment of the constitution tabled by the ruling BNP on March 21, 1996 and passed on March 26, 1996 by 268-0 votes.
It's not understood why the AL general secretary has termed the three general elections held in 1996, 2001 and 2008 under the constitutional CG system as failures, when these elections received national and international acclamation for their fairness and neutrality, and particularly when two of them brought the AL to power.
One political analyst recently wrote that the AL had been having a very bad time since elections and its performance was not winning points. Many of the problems it faces have grown over the years under both AL and BNP regimes, and because they were ignored they have perhaps become unmanageable. If the AL can't handle them unpopularity is inevitable, and that may translate into an electoral loss the next time. The AL may not want to risk a free and fair election under the CG system. Hence, it wants to do away with it and reduce the risk -- unlike the BNP, which wanted to keep the system but manipulate it.
Next comes the holding of a free and fair election by the EC under a political government. Will it be possible for the EC with the level of power that it enjoys? The past experience of elections held by the EC under political governments gives a negative answer. Another analyst has written that since independence there has been a gradual public alienation from the election process owing to electoral malpractices.
As such, election results were always a foregone conclusion. The crisis of people's confidence in the stage-managed election system reached its peak during Ershad's rule. The people saw how the party in power nakedly interfered in some by-elections in the nineties and thereafter.
The constitutional obligation to frame a law to regulate the appointment of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners (ECs) remains unfulfilled. As a result, the policy of "pick and choose" guides their appointment. They naturally remain obligated to the government that appoints them in the above manner.
It's good to hear about strengthening of the EC. But a look into the history of our politics shows that it's most unlikely that the government will make the EC so strong and independent that it can call the shots in an election, no matter who rules the roost.
The AL general secretary has suggested that the EC can hold the proposed dialogue with all the political parties. Is the EC empowered to hold dialogue with the political parties on such an important constitutional issue?
It's a fact that our CG system is unique, but it has also received appreciation from many countries. It's on record that important political personalities have advocated replication of the system in their countries. It's not that the system is flawless. The experience of the last 12 years or so may help us to bring appropriate amendment(s) to the CG system in greater national interest. We need the system until the political parties, particularly the ruling party or the principal leadership, develop a political culture that contributes to the successful functioning of democracy.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments