Strategically Speaking
On the horns of a dilemma
LITTLE could the chief advisor have anticipated, at the time he was sworn in, the situation he would be facing after more than a year in a job that nobody envies him for. He perhaps couldn't guess that things would come to such a pass as to confront him with a predicament in so far as the proposed election is concerned. It needs no reminding that holding a free, fair, transparent and participatory election was, is and will remain till the duration of the government, the major task of this government.
It is regrettable that the three major parties have expressed apprehensions about holding of elections by the end of this year, the time schedule given by the Election Commission, albeit with different nuances, and affirmed by the chief advisor many times, and by the chief of the army staff only the day before. And there are different opinions as to what has compelled them to shape their idea about the prospects of election.
Two very different views are informing the political debate regarding the next parliamentary ballot. One view is for holding the election by the stipulated time, while the other group is equally determined that the elections should be held as per schedule, but not before promised changes are incorporated so that the country does not run the risk of reverting to the days before 1/11.
The stakeholders in the first option are the two major political parties who have support of a section of the population that are unwilling to countenance an arrangement where the reins of the government are in the hands of an unelected body, albeit constitutional, any longer.
The other group is led by a section of the civil society, and one of the other key political parties, that feel that without appropriate political and electoral changes, i.e. reform of the political parties and politicians, democracy or election would be meaningless.
The worrisome aspect is that some of those that are interested in election and election only, appear to have lost confidence in the caretaker government's impartiality, as well as its ability, to hold elections timely, ascribing various motives, to the Election Commission as well as the caretaker government, in the modalities being adopted to bring in the changes.
The vital question is, how does the caretaker government reconcile the two demands without prejudicing either election or democracy? A supplementary to it is, why has there been a denudation of confidence in the transparency of the caretaker government to the extent that some are no longer willing to call it "neutral?"
One feels that the chief advisor and his team ought to dwell on why that is so and act fast to rectify the situation. The worst situation that it would like to face now is the loss of its credentials, either on real or perceived grounds.
Let us dwell on why the loss of credentials.
One of the reasons why some are ascribing motives to the various steps taken by the caretaker government is the perception that not all the policies or actions initiated by it have to do with the parliamentary elections and matters directly related to it. The objectives were far too many than was reasonably implementable within the time frame, or needed to be formulated under the circumstances.
The biggest gripe is that cleansing politics by targeting corruption and the corrupt was not done with the transparency that it deserved. The perception of the government's double standards has much to do with the question being asked about its sincerity. Let us be more specific.
While the anti-corruption drive has been laudable, many are asking why some of those that are known to be corrupt according to what I have termed as PPI (Public Perception Index) have escaped the dragnet so far. And while some are in jail on alleged corruption it has taken more than a year to frame charges against them, while some against whom a prima facie has already been established and FIR lodged are walking about freely.
Public perception about the government's contradictory stance has been somewhat reinforced by its attempt to treat same or similar offences differently through the much talked about truth and reconciliation commission. Very few who are convinced about the usefulness of the proposed commission, and notwithstanding the declared rationale of the government for its formation, one feels that the ordinance will actually reconcile with corruption rather than fight it.
In the same manner the issue of the NSC has created misgivings about the intention of the government behind bringing up the issue now, particularly when it has nothing to do with the elections, and had better be left to an elected government. The matter has been complicated by certain self-styled protagonists of the role of the military in future political arrangement, who are dispensing ideas about the NSC that only help to strengthen the apprehension of those that are convinced that the motive behind reviving the issue is to establish and perpetuate military's role in running the affairs of the country.
The government has been ill served by the spiralling prices, which was initially restricted to essential food items only but has now affected other commodities too. There was first the rice syndicate and now we have the rod syndicate that has caused its rise manifold. Detractors are now talking about prospect of power sector being taken over by the syndicate with the possibility that we might lose our right to determine the price of one of the very few things that are indigenously produced -- power.
The chief advisor is really faced with the two sharp points of the horn, whichever option he chooses to implement. And to avoid the dilemma he would require the sincere help and positive contribution of the political parties in holding an election that would provide a kind of politics and polity different from what we have witnessed so far, particularly of the type that compelled 1/11. And that was the commitment that the caretaker government had given the people while taking over the reins of the state. And that was the general demand of the people, in the wake of the miserable events leading up to the cancellation of the January 22 election. There is little to suggest that the mood of the majority has changed very much insofar as the election and the political and electoral reforms are concerned.
It calls for highly prudent actions on the part of the current government to see that not only are elections held timely but that the changes envisaged are also put in place. But above all these must be done in a manner that would not bring the motives of the government to question.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments