Post Breakfast
Looking for a 'healthy and stable' democratic process
THE Administration's efforts over the past year has been aimed at reforming the factors associated with the holding of a fair, free, neutral and credible election. I shall try in the next few paragraphs, with the help of quoted texts from the Chief Adviser's latest speech, to analyse the emerging situation.
In this context, the Election Commission has been busy in creating a new flawless voters list and identity cards. Available reports indicate that more than 70 million voters have already been registered. Some of the gloss of this remarkable task was however unnecessarily tarnished through the controversy of the doctrine of necessity. Fortunately, efforts are now underway to undo this mistake.
There has also been the relentless pursuit against corruption, which has been identified as the 'main enemy to national progress and development'. Efforts have been taken to 'come out of the vicious circle of corruption at any cost' so that 'all avenues for corruption get closed in the future'.
This jihad against corruption appears to have been undertaken with the indirect hope that this will rid the 'entire election process' from 'black money, muscle power, administrative biases, nomination trade and excessive expenses for poll campaigns'. It is believed that if all these measures can be put in place, we will then be able to not only establish 'a proper sustainable democratic process' within the country but also be able to hold a 'free, fair and acceptable election as per the earlier announced roadmap'.
Towards these ends, we have had in the first round, exchange of views between the Election Commission and representatives from various political parties. This process of dialogue has however not always been above disagreement as to the procedure being followed by the Election Commission. Allegations surfaced at different times that there was a hidden agenda. There were also rumours that efforts were being tailor-made to suit the quest of certain quarters in bringing about their version of reforms to the electoral law, rules and regulations. Consequently, instead of consensus, we have had acrimony and legal cases in courts. This greatly reduced the impact of the exchange of ideas.
We had after this, pre-dialogue discussions staggered over 22 days. Five Advisers of the government completed this process with representatives from different political parties and later submitted their own report to the Chief Adviser. Their report included suggestions about possible objectives that might be pursued in the main dialogue as well as the procedure to be followed in this regard and the 'different action programmes' that might be adopted in this context. As expected, confidentiality was the most important element of the report prepared by the Advisers. On the flip side, lack of transparency again created rumours and a communication gap between those desiring a dialogue and those in charge of preparing for such an eventuality.
In between, we have had many foreign visitors and free advice from diplomats, resident or on the point of departure. Their suggestions that the election needs to be held before the end of 2008 and that, to make it more credible, be held not in a state of emergency but without it (absolutely yes), has added another dimension to the unfolding political process. Whatever the reason, the views of our development partners are considered relevant and heard the loudest in our corridors of power.
Elections are taking place all over the world. It is nothing new. We have democracy being practiced in the parliamentary format not only in South Asia but also in most regions of the world. Selection of the party nominee for the presidential format in the USA has been the focal point of attention all over the world.
Unfortunately in Bangladesh, it has till now, been a very restrictive bandwidth of engagement as far as the election progression has been concerned. In flat terms it is now being pointed out that 'a national charter needs to be adopted through concerted discussion' so that eventually we can 'launch a healthy and stable democratic process in the country'.
Such an approach has been decided upon on the basis of a continuing perception that reforms to the political process, the electoral dynamics and changes within the election laws and within political parties can be achieved through limited dialogue, urban in nature and scope, within the matrix of emergency provisions. Restrictions accordingly have continued to be in place through emergency provisions and the broader picture overlooked. This in turn, has denied opportunity for discussion and knowledge sharing in the non-urban areas inhabited by nearly 75 per cent of our total population.
There are some who will say that we have had exchange of views with representatives of political parties and the civil society and professional groups. That, in my opinion is not totally correct. It has not been comprehensive in nature. Have we actually been able to arrive at least common denominators without the presence of the real leadership? Most of the so-called reformist leaders have skeletons in their closet and are seen (by the common man) as agreeing to proposed reform measures to avoid being hauled off on various charges.
There could also have been greater inter-action and analytical dialogue at the grassroots level. We seem to have forgotten that in our rural framework, schoolteachers, lawyers, doctors and civil society workers wield considerable influence. We are having these dialogues with urban-centric leaders who rarely visit their villages -- probably once a year. Do the authorities think that having a dialogue and a contract with these urban-based representatives will actually ensure lasting reforms?
I agree with the Chief Adviser on the need to create consensus on factors that will lead to 'rule of law, healthy politics, effective Parliament and an accountable administration'. I also endorse his belief that in this 'competitive and fast moving' world, we need to 'shun all forms of destructive and negative politics' like 'hartal, blockade and violent opposition'. So far so good.
However, I do question suggestions that there is need to create 'balance' in the 'power structure'. It has been mentioned that 'too much centralized power is not helpful at all for a stable and responsible governance'. It has also been pointed out that 'power re-structuring among the highest constitutional posts can play positive role for political stability'. Indirectly, it has been hinted that this could be an important aspect of discussion in the upcoming dialogue.
It is at this point that we need to ponder a bit more.
Like Dryden I believe that the fault lies not in poetry but in the bad poets. There is also the question of mindset. Any analysis of the political activities within and outside the parliament will reveal that the failure of the process of good democratic accountable governance was due to the absence of bipartisanship and total disregard about the proper functioning of the parliament. The parliamentary standing committees were made useless and important issues never discussed, thanks to a totally partial Speaker. This was in sharp contrast to the manner in which parliamentary democracy is pursued in neighbouring India.
There is also the question of the existing constitutional provisions in Article 70 (1) that restrains MPs of any party from voting against that party in Parliament. This, over the years has contributed largely towards the misuse of parliamentary powers by different parties in power. The scope of protest and the use of one's individual conscience in determining the correctness of party position on an issue have been negated through a undemocratic provision that does not exist in other real democracies like Germany or even the European Parliament.
Re-structuring power would mean substantial changes in the spirit of the existing Constitution. These are elements that could be considered after the election by the newly elected Parliament. We could set up for this purpose a Constitutional Commission composed of representatives from every single party in the Parliament. Amending the provision contained in existing Article 70 (1) could be one of their responsibilities. Political parties ahead of the election could agree on this during their dialogue with the Chief Adviser and his team. Their report could eventually be discussed on the floor of the House and necessary amendments incorporated.
This interim caretaker government has been given the task of holding a credible election. Let them do so. Please leave ideas of restructuring to elected Members of Parliament.
There are many important reforms about the political parties that have been considered and spoken off. The Election Commission could insist on the incorporation of some of them within the constitution of each political party at the time of its registration with the Election Commission. They will then have to follow the agreed guidelines. That will also usher in accountability and transparency within the political parties. One would hope such transparency would be similar to the transparent ballot boxes.
We have already had discussions with some of the smaller political parties. More likely than not, such parties will win less than five seats in the new Parliament. In this context, the organizers of the dialogue will now have to ensure that there is also participation of the major parties. Otherwise, the process of dialogue will not be seen as successful.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments