Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

New Age: You have proposed that the chief adviser of the caretaker government and the chief election commissioner be appointed upon consensus among all political parties. What will be the constitutional and legal framework for the selections?
   Suranjit Sengupta: The country is in a severe crisis. We are in a confrontational political situation. All the institutions are being destroyed by politicisation. In fact, the nation is under an autocratic regime. The basic cause of these crises is lack of free and fair elections.
   But the ruling alliance came to power through an election held under a caretaker government…
   That election was not a free and fair election. The caretaker regime that was in power during the 2001 election failed to uphold its neutrality and thus made the system of the caretaker government controversial. Hence, we have proposed reforms to the system.
   We have proposed that persons acceptable to all parties be appointed as chief adviser and chief election commissioner so that the elections can be free and fair. For an acceptable election, acceptable chief adviser and CEC are needed.
   How would those persons be selected?
   The framework for selection of a chief adviser acceptable to all parties is very much there in the existing constitution. The thirteenth amendment to the constitution has provided some options for appointment of the chief adviser, and the last but one option provided is on the basis of consultation with political parties. We have demanded exercise of this option. The demand is therefore not a strange idea.
   But the constitution stipulates that option to be considered as the last resort, but you are demanding that option be the first and only option. Should such a vague provision in the constitution be turned into a mandatory one?
   If it is a vague provision, then it is the ruling BNP that incorporated it into the constitution and now we are demanding implementation of the provision they have made. We want consensus on the appointment of the chief adviser. Without consensus we would have no constitution. Democracy will not be institutionalised without consensus.
   What process would you suggest as a way to arrive at a consensus on the issue?
   The problem lies with the sick mentality of the ruling party and the perverse politics that they pursue. If politics of decency is exercised, there will be no crisis in reaching a consensus. If they abandon the mentality of confrontation, destruction, corruption and crime, and are ready to exercise a political culture of consensus, then there will be no problem. We have a number of precedence of consensus. We did it in 1991. At that time no such question as regards problems of consensus was raised.
   By stating that consensus should be reached by ‘all parties’, who are you proposing to be consulted before appointing the chief adviser? What would be the criteria of selecting the parties?
   ‘All parties’ means majority of the parties. Sometimes the constitutional term ‘may’ becomes ‘must’ and ‘shall’ becomes ‘will’. This question has never been raised, whenever a consensus has been reached, and will not come this time as well. Nurul Amin won the election in 1970. Was the independence of the country obstructed by that? Did the nation not reach a consensus on independence?
   You are demanding that the chief adviser of the caretaker government enjoy the full authority of the prime minister of a parliamentary system during the interim period of non-party rule…
   Yes, we are. The powers and functions of the chief adviser must be in accordance with the parliamentary system.
   Ruling party leaders argue that this demand is not consistent with the spirit of the constitution and the democratic system, as the chief adviser of the caretaker government is not an elected office.
   It is not inconsistent with the constitution or the democratic system, rather it is the mandate of the constitution, constitutionality of the constitution. If they go by the supremacy of the constitution, the chief adviser will have the powers and functions of a prime minister under the parliamentary system. There is no scope for debate on this issue.
   Can the caretaker government function in the same manner as a government in parliamentary system when the caretaker government itself is accountable to the president during the interim period?
   No. This constitutional provision is also to be amended. The caretaker government cannot be accountable to a president who is elected by the majority party in parliament.
   Then, who should the caretaker government be accountable to?
   Let the caretaker government be accountable to the constitution, as the constitution is the supreme law of the land. They may be accountable to the rule of law, to the people and ultimately to the next government.
   How far is entrusting the armed forces under a non-elected chief adviser consistent with the constitution and the democratic system?
   When the whole responsibility of the election is given to the non-elected office, then why can we not have the armed forces under the non-elected chief adviser? We have proposed so to keep the armed forces above any controversy.
   You see, the president has given clemency to a party-man who had been awarded death penalty 22 years back. So, is there anything he cannot do? Is it safe to put the armed forces under him? So, the neutral caretaker government has to be absolutely neutral and defence must be put under the caretaker government.
   The distribution of power that has been contemplated in the constitution must remain the same during the caretaker government. If the parliamentary system will be followed for five years, then why should it be discontinued during the three months of the caretaker government?
   Ruling party leaders argue that the armed forces should remain under the president, which is the only elected office during the caretaker government…
   If so, why do they not put the defence ministry under the elected president during the five-year tenure of the elected government? They have not upheld the dignity of the office of the president through the twelfth amendment to the constitution. So, the proposition that they are putting forward now is not consistent with what they have practiced so far.
   Does it make any difference, particularly in terms of its impact on election results, if the armed forces are put under the chief adviser instead of the president?
   The army is an institution that has the experience of the liberation war. This army is the army of the United Nations peacekeeping corp. The army is above all debate. They must be kept out of any controversy for the sake of national interest. So we want that this institution must be kept in the hands of the office acceptable to all. Only the chief adviser and the Election Commission are competent to ensure proper utilisation of the defence forces during elections.
   Why did you not take any initiative for such reforms when your party was in power between 1996 and 2001?
   During our tenure no such reform proposal came up from any quarter. Had there been any, things could have been done. Moreover, we did not have the two-thirds majority in parliament.
   You placed a bill in parliament seeking amendment to the constitution for continuation of reservation of parliamentary seats for women, the passage of which would have required two-thirds majority.
   But, we could not pass the bill.
   But you did not even place a caretaker reforms bill in parliament.
   For reserved seats there was a constitutional mandate. Had there been any such mandate regarding caretaker reforms or had there been any proposal for that, we would have taken the initiative.
   You could have at least brought in reforms to the electoral laws.
   The question of such reforms did not come up during our rule. Had there been any such proposal we would have discussed the issue.
   You are demanding reforms to election laws while your party, like many others, did not observe many an electoral law and rule in the past, an important one being submission of the returns of its election expenses by the party.
   No, that is not correct. Submission of returns is a mandatory law. If someone fails to submit such returns, the election has to be void. It is not a matter for the parties, but for the individual candidates.

New Age: Do you see any constitutional or legal problems with the opposition proposal for amending the constitutional provision for the non-party caretaker government system?
   Moudud Ahmed: The constitutional arrangement of having a non-party caretaker government to run the country during general elections is a settled issue accepted by all the political parties of the country. Under this system two general elections, one in 1996 and another in 2001, have been held peacefully. The Awami League won an election and the BNP-led alliance the other. The constitution is the fundamental law of the country and it cannot be changed to suit the conveniences and inconveniences of any party. Every time an election is held, the loser will then demand further amendment to the constitution and this would stand as precedence. Both the elections held in 1996 and 2001 under the present constitutional arrangement were more or less free and fair and accepted by the people at home and abroad.
   The suggestion that the chief adviser has to be acceptable to all has two immediate implications — (1) the constitution will have to be amended; and (2) it will be extremely difficult to make such a provision in the constitution that the chief adviser will have to accepted ‘by all’. So their proposal is absurd, impractical and unrealistic. It will contravene the basic structure of the constitution and such a vague provision will lead to total anarchy and a collapse of the administration.
   The opposition parties argue that the caretaker government should be in tune with the spirit of the parliamentary system of governance, and thus the armed forces should remain under the command of the chief adviser, instead of the president. Why is the BNP opposed to the idea?
   Firstly, again, under the same system two interim governments have functioned. Secondly, this again will need an amendment to the constitution that cannot be considered as a logical proposition. An elected government headed by a prime minister and a non-elected interim government headed by a chief adviser for a period of only three months cannot be the same. The non-elected chief adviser cannot assume the exact powers and functions of the prime minister as practiced in a parliamentary system of government. The caretaker government is to carry on the routine functions of the administration and in the absence of parliament the advisers are collectively accountable to the president under the constitution. So, during the tenure of the caretaker government the armed forces have been placed under the president quite rightly, as the supreme command of the defence services is vested with the president under the parliamentary system of government practised in the country as well.
   The opposition has also demanded constitutional amendment to undo the present provision that makes the caretaker government accountable to the president, who is, as they claim, elected by a political party.
   That is not a correct proposition. The president is not elected by any party, rather by parliament. Secondly, the caretaker government must be accountable to someone. What will be the office or forum to which the caretaker government will be accountable to other than the president?
   The opposition says that the caretaker government will be accountable to their conscience, to the people and to the next parliament.
   That is also an absurd proposition, because the caretaker government no longer exists after the formation of a new parliament and taking office by a new government. Moreover, the president under the parliamentary system may remain a titular head, but his authority and responsibilities are bound to be different during the tenure of a non-elected interim government. During the interim period, he should obviously have a greater responsibility. So, as the caretaker government itself has to be accountable to the president, it is only reasonable that the armed forces will be under presidential command. During any kind of emergency, the president, being the only elected office during the tenure of the interim government, must have enormous responsibilities. So, we do not find any substance in the opposition argument, if at all there is any.
   Does it make any difference, particularly in terms of its impact on election results, if the armed forces are put under the chief adviser, instead of the president?
   It will as such have no effect on the elections. Defence does not only mean soldiers guarding the electoral constituencies. Some other more vital national interests are related to defence. As far as the assistance of the armed forces in conducting the elections goes, the same practice can be followed as has been done in earlier elections. There should not be any problem in seeking the cooperation of the armed forces during elections. It is immaterial under whose command the Ministry of Defence is, particularly as far as the election is concerned.
   Is there any possibility of dialogue between the government and the opposition on the reform proposals?
   The demands placed by the opposition are their political agenda. Being a minority in parliament, they want to impose it on the majority, but such an action itself is not democratic. However, it does not mean that they cannot voice their demands. But it cannot be the government’s agenda to implement them. If they want to discuss any of the demands, parliament is the only recognised forum where they are free to come and place their demands for negotiation and discussion.
   Your party has also felt that electoral laws should be reformed to improve the quality of elections. But the BNP, like many others, did not observe a set of exiting rules such as submission of returns of election expenses of the party…
   As far as the electoral process, procedures and laws are concerned, many of the opposition proposals are already there in the existing laws and rules. The rest could be negotiated. The Election Commission may be strengthened further. There can also be discussion on how to make the Election Commission a more effective institution. Discussion can also be held on stopping the use of black money and violence in the election.
   That none of the political parties follows the existing electoral laws and rules is a matter that the Election Commission has to address. It is up to the commission to ensure enforcement of election laws and rules. The commission should take punitive measures against those, including the ruling party, failing to behave.

I wake up every morning, look out of my window, see the lake in ecstatic ripples with the morning sun, and with a silent prayer thank God for the bounty called life. I hum to the tune of the great Sachmo’s ‘What a wonderful world’, look forward towards my first cup of tea till the newspaper gives me a rude awakening to the facts of everyday living. I live in Bangladesh where extra-judicial killing is the norm of the day; the minority Ahmmadiyas are persecuted; a convicted killer gets a presidential pardon with dubious roles played by the high and mighty; share prices without any apparent reason plummet and Aftab is back as a teacher of the country’s premier university despite his chequered past. In this medley of despair I seek consolation that at last the opposition acknowledges what a menace Hazari is and expels him, teachers in Nilphamari resist forced marriage of a minor girl, the Bangladesh –A cricket team humbles the pride of two major English counties and our very own pride Professor Yunus is nominated for the Nobel Prize.
    My mind is going through a roller coaster of emotions, dipping to the depths of despair to the heights of hope. I see hope where there is despair and despair in my hope – my mind alternates between believing that Bangladesh as a country is unviable and will eventually whittle away in anarchy, while consoling myself that a resilient nation like the Bengalis has endured multiple colonial regimes, single party rule, military dictatorships, the fury of nature and has survived. Therefore the shameless political leaders, who monopolise the leadership now, will eventually be relegated to the dust heap of history, cursed for eternity.
   Then I have a closer look at society and despair at my wishful thinking and cursing of the political leadership for all that is wrong today, ignoring the fact that our leadership is a mere reflection of our society and as our social fabric stands, be it the government, media, private enterprise or the corner grocery shop, each facet of society is suffering from a massive dose of incompetence and a high degree of corruption and malpractice. The most innocuous would be the compulsive propensity to short change the customer either by weight or price by the grocer to the grievous presidential clemency based on dubious political considerations. The role of the media is quite interesting on this issue of clemency. Though there were other powerful ministers involved in the process equally guilty of wrongdoing, a section of the media chose to focus on the law minister, depriving the general public of the malicious role played by the others.
   So how does one overhaul a whole society? Despairing as it might sound, one doesn’t deliberately engineer it. It has to organically transform through change with growing prosperity for the common citizen and good governance. Societies in different phases through time evolve according to their own necessities and constraints. After the Second World War, history tells us that even some blue blooded Prussian young ladies were found to solicit favours for a trifle cigarette and a piece of barley bread in a war devastated economy that was the reality for Germany. All moveable steel parts of railway carriages were stolen and hawked in a thriving black market. Eventually with the Marshall Plan and German management and scientific genius, Germany as a nation has again raised itself back to the high state of civility and prosperity it previously enjoyed.
   Today Bangladesh geo-politically lies in close proximity to the most dynamic economies in the world. India is next door and China is not even a hundred miles from Panchagarh. By 2030 China will be the world’s second largest economy and India will be the third. It is our responsibility to piggyback these economies and bring greater prosperity for the people. This would require astute management of our resources as well as visionary leadership. So far both have been wanting. With growing prosperity in our neighbours such a large population like ours will become extremely impatient and volatile. And through this volatility, society will strive to purge itself of the present evils that manifest themselves in us. This is an inevitability that the whole society will face and the process will be extremely painful for all us who will witness it. For the leadership (of all institutions, media included) present, past and near future, if they operate in their own complacency, smug in their belief of infallibility and competence, the French Revolution and the violence that it generated should knock in some sense. If it doesn’t and the nation’s institutions operate as usual, then the growing pains for all of us are going to be tormenting. It is a plea to our leadership to at least make these growing pains tolerable for us as well as for their own sake.
    To be a harbinger of doom is an unpalatable task but the shameless mis-governance of our ruling elite compels one to remind them from time to time that the wraith of society can be extremely unforgiving. Cursed to live in interesting times, we are witnessing the downward spiral of Bangladesh’s society, economically, politically and ethically while our neighbours are prospering into developed nations. This injustice is unviable and someone has to pay the price – who will it be? You or me? Whoever, someone will; however, when is just a matter of time! Then hopefully my son can thank God for the bounty called life in his own country Bangladesh.