Promoting liberalism with medieval mindset
THE honourable shipping minister is not the first democratically elected person to speak on the virtues of summary killing, extra-judicial deaths or the deaths in the so-called crossfire. Not very long ago, our minister in charge of foreign affairs very poignantly indicated the difficulties of suddenly coming out of the clutches of crossfire killings. She was saying so after returning from an international forum in Geneva where she assured the audience about Bangladesh's firm resolve to put an effective stop to the extra-judicial killings.
It is only a few days now that the former general, and long time ruler of Bangladesh, Hussain Muhammad Ershad, has appreciated the usefulness of crossfire killings by decrying the failure of the criminal justice system to punish the hardened criminals and bring relief to the suffering members of public.
The dilemma of our socio-political existence is brought home by the reality that while those wishing to see the effective writ of the rule of law are continuously pointing to the un-tenability of extra-judicial deaths as an acceptable socio-legal response, there is no dearth of supporters or admirers of such apparently abominable method. Random eliciting of opinions by newspapers has shown that a large majority of people entertain the view that the deplorable slide in crime and order can gradually be stalled by resorting to extra-judicial killings.
It is time, therefore, to do some serious introspection and find out how we have arrived at such a lugubrious scenario. The seriousness of the matter is warranted by the fact that if extra-judicial killings succeed in even implicitly acquiring the seal of approval, then there remains no justification to maintaining and supporting a justice system at public expense. The question is, how low shall we stoop and offend the democratic sensibilities?
Shall not our present predicament compel us to examine and find out if the working of various institutions in the criminal justice system were interfered with and not allowed to do their due? Such premonition cannot be summarily dismissed in our situation where crime, criminality and criminals could not be dealt with in an objective and professional manner.
It is not too late if we decide to set our house in order and behave as a civilized society. For that to happen, the responsible persons in the corridors of power have to exercise due diligence and act earnestly to uphold the rule of law. That is not a tall order.
The question is, do we want sustained laborious action under the law to strengthen our democratic foundation, or do we need rash desperate action without the cover of law? The crossfire actions, undoubtedly, do not fit in with the first proposition. We need to be absolutely clear about that.
The ultimate punishment in the alleged 'crossfire' -- about whose credibility many are not convinced -- appear as summary response from desperate executive of law enforcement. The legality of actions leading to such extreme action aside, any responsible citizen might like to know if, in our often over-zealous anti-crime operations, we are just treating the symptoms without venturing to study and assess the objective conditions promoting criminality. We do not need sociologists and criminologist to tell us that present-day crime is a complex social phenomenon caused by a multiplicity of factors, and determining culpability is an extremely mind-exacting task.
Everyday life experience tells us that quite often, the fun-seeking delinquent of yesteryears turns into the uncontrollable don of the day, due to the patronage of powerful quarters and the unexplained inaction of the enforcement outfit. Therefore, when deaths occur in the so-called 'crossfire', some myopic elements may be satisfied but a civilized society, which wishes to live by the cannons of law, cannot but be concerned. The alleged deaths in 'crossfire' are forestalling the benefits of thorough investigations from which citizens could have known the pathetic, and yet compelling, factors behind the growth and maturing of criminals, the shady role of the patrons and the alleged inertia of the regulatory units.
What we need is adequate provision of witness protection and victim support in the criminal justice administration. To make those effective we need a large injection of governmental funds. Any further delay will only swell the ranks of summary-justice seekers and the admirers of vigilante action. The decapitating adversity of the victims of crime demand mainstream support of the system.
The rule of law and criminal jurisprudence may appear to be unequivocally in favour of the offenders, the criminals, the law-breakers, and the accused persons. That does not automatically give a license to resort to illegal measures because a civilized government must earnestly strive to demonstrate that law-enforcement effectiveness and civil liberties can co-exist in a society governed by the rule of law. We cannot defend a liberal principle by reviving a medieval prejudice.
Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist for The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments