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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

A much talked about, comprehensive caretaker government and Election Commission (EC) reforms package has been put forward by the Awami League led 14 party alliance to ensure free and fair elections in the country. According to the proposals for reform, the president will appoint an acceptable person as the chief of the caretaker administration and other advisers on consensus in consultation with all political parties. The president will act in all matters on the advice of the chief adviser during the period of the caretaker government. The defence ministry will be run by the caretaker government during its tenure. Jurisdiction of the caretaker government will only be confined within the conduct of day to day routine work and assist the EC in the conduct of general election. The chief adviser and advisers will not be members of any political party.
   As per the proposals for reform of the electoral authority and system, appointment of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and other commissioners must be in consultation with all political parties. The EC will have an independent secretariat with its own manpower and be free from the control of the executive branch. The EC will be fully independent financially and the finance ministry will have no control over the release of its budget. EC will have full authority to appoint returning officers, presiding officers and law enforcing agencies at the time of election.
   Transparency must be maintained in enlisting the names of voters and preparing the voter list. ID card must be introduced for voters and electronic voting system must be introduced. Expatriates must be included in the voter list and their voting be too ensured.
   Some of the proposals here are very good, some are politically motivated and fuzzy, and some intended to be funny. The most sensitive point of the proposals is the armed forces issue. How can it be possible that the caretaker government, which has no accountability to the nation, is not mandated by people and is of three-month tenure only, will run the defence ministry, that is, the sacred armed forces of the Republic, during its short tenure? In any case, if the country is attacked by any enemy country that time, then how will the caretaker government deal with that most crucial crisis? And in case of any ‘irresponsible decision’ that could invite devastating war on the state, who will take up the responsibility thereafter? This is the question now being asked by the people. Armed forces are the symbol of a nation’s sovereignty. And sovereignty is the final identity of a nation. Our politicians should not involve the armed forces in any of their moves. The armed forces are still considered political influence free and people in our country have faith in them. They (armed forces) should be kept above any controversy. The president is a permanent institution of the state and he has great responsibility and utter accountability to the nation. This is a recognized fact in all democracies in the world. So, the armed forces must be entrusted with and run by the president other than any caretaker.
   Some ‘funny’ proposals have it that “the president will have to work under the chief adviser”. Funny as well as humiliating indeed! In the circumstances a popular question is arising now that what levels our ‘pretentious’ politicians’ ‘game of craftiness’ and ‘mutual untrust’ have reached! This is deeply shaming for us all. This malady of our politicians is bringing greatly shame on our nation. Yes, the president should act in consultation with the chief adviser.
   A good few inefficient but highly pretentious political high ups in our country are extremely corrupt and power hungry. They use all kinds of ‘sophistry’ in order to get to power. In this ‘game of power’ the fundamentalist evil forces are the greatest beneficiaries. They are in the coziest position now. On the one hand, the BNP is getting increasingly dependent on their support in a power sharing electoral contract, brushing aside all the spirit of liberation war, and the Awami League (AL) is desperately trying to break up the BNP-Jamaat tie (even offering covertly ‘good benefits’ to the Jamaat). Hence, the Jamaat has to do little. It simply sits cozily.
    Anyway, going back to what I began with, some proposals say vaguely that the caretaker government will only be limited to carry out day to day routine work and assist the EC in conducting the general elections. Very wrong idea indeed! If the chief adviser of caretaker government cannot exercise absolute powers like a prime minister (PM), though he has to do all the work of a PM during his tenure, it will be quite impossible for him to run the election in a free and fair way. Normally political cadres and armed terrorists wait to exercise their power during the election for their party candidates’ win, through which their existence will be reinforced. In this situation if the caretaker government is weak these people will exploit the full benefit of its weakness. Joining in this, the already politicized and hassling bureaucracy will also take the advantages of weakness. As a result, an anarchic situation could be created in our public life, which may lead the country to its doom. So the caretaker government has been given absolute power for the sake of true democracy. According to proposals, the chief adviser and other advisers have to be acceptable to all political parties. And the chief adviser will have the trust of all political parties. Yes, the proposals sound excellent. The proposal regarding the appointment of CEC and other commissioners is good. The proposals about the EC and electoral reforms are also excellent. But how far is it possible for our political parties to agree a consensus? If it were so, the country’s economy would go far ahead by this time.
   In a true democracy, party and individual interest must be dispensed with for the greater benefit of the nation though there are different opinions and views. If our politicians are really concerned with public welfare, all these scattered views have to be unified into a benevolent whole to ensure the security and welfare of the citizens. But unfortunately, it is all their politics rather than public welfare. ‘Public welfare’ has become an overused word in our politics. So, it is a question of all now—whether our ‘pretentious’ and ‘crafty’ politicians want public welfare or their own welfare. Many democratic countries in the world, including our neighbour India, have advanced a long way industrially and economically, whereas even in 34 years as an independent country, we have advanced little and are still lagging behind in every respect due to our hostile, corrupt politics.
   It is feared that at the next election money and muscle power will dominate the election as political parties patronize and give nomination to those who have more monetary (black or white whatsoever) and muscle power while others with merit and calibre remain neglected. Yes, it is well founded which the democracy of almost all the third world countries experiences (Bangladesh is perhaps the worst of them). In these countries politics is the most profitable business. It is a kind of investment to grab hugely public wealth and fortune. Necessarily it happens in the fragile democracy. If we look back to our political high ups a huge contrast of wealth between after and before power is visible. Their actions have always contrasted sharply with their pledges. Ironically, yet they are good doers, national leaders, and so on.
   Before caretaker system and EC reforms, our political parties and leaders’ attitudes have to be reformed first for ensuring a free and fair election in the country. The tendency of finding fault with others rather than rectifying themselves, and shifting responsibilities must be avoided. The rectification among the parties and introducing the culture of democracy within every political party must be practised first to ensure transparency in the national election. The political parties ought to find out their own faults and vices to get them rectified. In this respect they can follow the examples of true democratic parties of some other countries like the UK and USA.
   Opportunists and foot lickers change the colour in no time with regime change to be in the good book of, or always surround the chairperson and her family. Result today of the democratic period is divisive politics centring round one person or family by opportunist elements and outright flatterers standing in queue. So far Zia-Khaleda dynasty is visible by the entrance of Tareq Rahman. On the other, Mujib-Hasina dynasty is drumming the advent of Sajib Wazed Joy through retaliated, heavy showdowns. Oh, an octogenarian likes to see a left dynasty too! He argues it is a trend in our neighbouring countries. Nehru-Indira dynasty in Congress in India. But they could not agree. In Indian state of West Bengal it is the left front, not Congress, that rules the state for decades. Currently at the centre, it is united, progressive alliance led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, not a member of Nehru dynasty, nominated by Congress president Sonia Gandhi. However, the mindset is changing gradually in India. But in ours the trend is getting deep seated day by day, even in this information age. As a result, politicization, nepotism and ‘outright’ flattery at all levels in our public life, giving rise to free style and systemic corruption and awful inefficiency coupled with lack of accountability everywhere, are increasingly flagrant in our country. The people who are corrupt now flagrantly do not even hide the fact that they are corrupt. That is precisely why US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca made observations before the US House International Relations Subcommittee for Asia and Pacific in Washington on June 14 that political rivalries, failures of governance, widespread corruption and rising extremism threaten democratic stability and drag down economic growth in Bangladesh. On extremism, Rocca, who came to Dhaka in May last, said: “Extremist groups operate in the country more openly.... We have cautioned the government about the dangers posed to Bangladesh by extremism.” A good few BNP leaders are harbouring Islamic fundamentalist parties/groups. They allegedly patronize and favour fundamentalist institutions, newspapers, organizations and their people.
   Anyway, I drifted a bit elsewhere from my point of analysis. The main objective of the mass upsurge in 1990 against autocracy was to bring a positive change in the national politics, but could not come up to the expectations of our people. Caretaker government issue emerged when the political parties were engaged in ousting the autocratic regime of General Ershad. It successfully performed its responsibilities with global acclamation and praise. The last election under the caretaker government of justice Latifur Rahman was held under unprecedented security. But the main opposition AL along with its allies has placed proposals to reform caretaker government and the EC. Already they have hinted that they will boycott the coming national election until and unless the reform proposals are fulfilled. The president deals with the armed forces in absence of the prime minister as the chief of caretaker government is temporary and not accountable to the people. But the AL wants to say that the president is a party man of BNP and absolute neutrality may not be expected from him. So their proposals include that the Defence Ministry will be controlled by the caretaker government during its tenure. The present government has, however, hinted to consider some logical proposals to strengthen the election system and ensure fair election. The constitution and law—all are for the country and countrymen. So, what is harm to change it for the welfare of the nation?
   Going by the present (hostile) political scenario of the country, how far are we expected that the political parties would meet in a common place to talk this crucial issue of the nation at the moment? ‘Mutual untrust’ resulting from ‘power hungry character’ is the root cause of all evils. When AL will be in power—what about the guarantee that BNP won’t do the same against the caretaker government? That does not mean that the caretaker government is not honest or the election was not fair. Where shall we get an angel to run our elections? Wasn’t justice Sahabuddin such a person? Could he save himself either from the wrath of AL and BNP when the party interests mattered?
   Confrontational politics together with widespread corruption in our public life has been strangling the economy for a long time. So, we, the common people, will urge our politicians that they try to do something for the country, for the people. Then people will spontaneously vote you to power. Avoid the culture of blaming the caretaker government or CEC. And cultivate the culture of conceding defeat and welcoming the winner as in the USA or UK. The people of this country are poor but more conscious than before.
   Email: msaifulh2003@yahoo.com

Childhood obesity is of little concern in Bangladesh. Yet, I choose the subject of childhood obesity for two reasons. First, it is a phenomenon that few seem to recognise as a risk. Second, it is within the capacity of individuals and families to reduce if not eliminate that risk. I could add a third reason: the long-term benefits of obesity prevention and control, by far exceed the effort and the cost.
   Parents are more concerned with immediate illness of their children but few are aware or worry about conditions whose outcomes are delayed. Understandable but not prudent.
   Why talk of childhood obesity in a country with unacceptably high level of childhood malnutrition? Because, the number of obese (overweight) children has been on the rise globally; and Bangladesh is certainly no exception. More to the point, it increases multiple and often fatal risks to health during the most productive period of adult life.
   Obese children are at significantly higher risk of developing diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks and brain strokes in adult life. These are serious illnesses and produce crippling disabilities; these lower the quality of life, and even cause premature deaths. A high burden of illness and disability in adult life also impacts negatively on households and on nation’s economic and social development.
   The popular myth that obesity is a problem for the rich countries alone (where the bulging waistline indeed has already become a major public health problem) is just that - a myth. Obesity may be associated with affluence but it is indeed the outcome of unhealthy lifestyle.
   Lest we forget, globally one third of all adult deaths are linked one way or other to being overweight, absence of regular physical exercise, and poor health habits due to ignorance or negligence.
   A random survey of Dhaka school children will most likely show a good number with mild or moderate obesity. Children are dropped off as closely as cars can get to the school gates. Many are in doubtful state of physical fitness. A kind of laziness (lack of physical work) has been imposed upon them by parents at home too.
   So-called ‘fast’ foods are often loaded with grease, salt, and sugar not to mention additives of doubtful safety. Junk foods are just junk; seductive advertising does not make it any better. A ‘global’ culture fuelled by commerce is good for profit but bad for health.
   As for school children (adults as well) eating more of natural foods, and regular exercises and games would help. A midday school meal (a glass of milk for example); strictly limited hours before TV; fewer or no ‘snacks and sweet beverages’ at home will help too. Sadly, schools in residential Dhanmondi, for example, seldom provide playgrounds for games or sports. The situation in many other schools located in improvised accommodation is hardly better. School meals are unheard of; foods sold by street side vendors are not safe.
   This is where ready to eat convenient snacks (otherwise known as fast foods) come in. Even at home, parents often indulge their children with a variety of food and beverages. While most of these give ‘empty’ calories, their nutritional value for growing children is doubtful.
   Granted, the power of advertising and selling in free market regime is formidable. Yet, public knowledge and consumer activism can also be formidable. Government can and should intervene to ensure public good through food safety and quality related law enforcement. But government alone cannot do enough. I do not underestimate the difficulty and understand the official inertia, yet I find it difficult to ignore the implications as a health worker. Health may not be everything but without health you have nothing.
   Here is an area in which the press and media have a great role in informing and mobilising public and support informed consumer activism. Corporate lobbies will resist curb on promotion and sale of foods and beverages; some of which are unhealthy. Even the otherwise activist press in Bangladesh might face a conflict of interest with commercial revenues and social responsibility. Still, here is one subject on which the media can play a seminal role, if it will, to inform and modulate public awareness and action.
   Childhood obesity is a high risk. Yet, it is less recognised. It deserves much more serious attention than it is getting.
   The writer invites an interested agency to conduct a rapid survey of child population mainly at the schools in Dhaka and Chittagong to start with; and establish a baseline of the overweight child population and their life style and diet habits.
   Public information and education will help but knowledge alone will not lead to change in behaviour.
   Social research might give some clues to what best triggers knowledge into change of behaviour. Individuals and families have a right and responsibility to choose behavioural changes for healthier lifestyle.
    I seem to be highlighting an issue that is not yet an alarming situation. But given the huge and multiple health risks of childhood obesity during adult life, actions rather than intentions are required, and now rather than later.
   Obesity kills, lowers quality of life. Obesity is not merely a health risk. It is a silent yet strong social and economic risk factor. As it is mostly preventable without medication the onus is on parents to encourage their children to a healthy and hygienic life style; inculcate in them a genuinely modern and smart way of living and growing.

The reaction to Robin Cook’s death shows that he was much more than a great parliamentarian and a reforming minister. In this age of public disaffection there are not many politicians who can expect their funeral cortege to be applauded in the street by hundreds of mourning citizens. As the tributes that have poured in testify, he struck a chord with people from across the political spectrum who feel that British politics has lost its way.
   Cook was also the standard bearer for an important tradition of Labour thought, and this is perhaps the most significant political issue raised by his passing. What happens to this tradition now may determine whether Labour is able to renew itself in office or is set on an irreversible course back to opposition.
   The section of the party that identified most strongly with Cook is very far from the old left of lazy caricature: the sort of people who prefer the purity of opposition to the difficult compromises of power. Indeed, its origins lie precisely in the rejection of that outlook in the early 1980s by what came to be known as the ‘soft left’. In a very real sense, it was Labour’s original modernisation project and laid the groundwork for the successes that followed.
   Its starting point was a recognition that Labour’s traditional political base was too narrow to sustain progressive change, and that broadening its appeal should be the party’s top priority. Cook himself would gently mock those who complained about Tony Blair on the basis that he was attracting Conservative voters. That was a sign of success, not failure. Labour needed to stand on a platform that was electorally viable, but it should also be one that remained rooted in its distinctive political values.
   By the early 1990s this tendency had coalesced around a fairly clear set of political ideas. Labour should locate itself firmly within the European tradition of social democracy, with everything that implied. Europe and its social model would be embraced as an antidote to the deregulatory, minimal-government dogma of Thatcherism. The state ownership of industry, as opposed to public services, would be abandoned, but social partnership and stakeholderism would be advanced as ways of balancing and humanising market relations. The British constitution, which had come to be seen as a structural impediment to radical change, would be transformed by a new politics based on decentralisation and democratic reform. In its most ambitious variant, supported by Cook, this included electoral reform and a willingness to work with other parties.
   This was the common sense of mainstream Labour at that time, so much so that Blair continued to identify himself with it, in each of its specifics, for a surprisingly long time after he became leader. Indeed, in its early period in office, New Labour remained remarkably true to this vision, supporting a national minimum wage, adopting the European social chapter and legislating for devolution. It was only gradually, and without discussion, that it was displaced by what we now understand as Blairism, and we realised that the social-democratic baby had been thrown out with the old Labour bathwater. The idea that we knew what we were getting when we voted for him is a cleverly spun myth, just like the idea that Labour was heading for oblivion before he took over.
   It is a preferred tactic of Blair and his sympathisers to stigmatise their critics on the left as recidivists who wish to return Labour to a failed past. What they hope to obscure is the fact that the argument advanced by Cook, and the disillusioned modernisers who supported him, is that Blairism is failing on its own terms, not old Labour’s.
   The promise of a new politics has foundered on broken commitments to hold a referendum on electoral reform and create a democratically elected second chamber. In many ways, Blair’s political style, with its instrumental view of power, and preference for the clever procedural fix over honest debate, reflects the very worst of old Labour. On Europe, Blair has taken a Eurosceptic lurch that has led him to call on our partners to abandon the very social ideals that once made integration attractive to Labour. In fact it has become increasingly hard to see how Blair’s European policy differs from the one pursued by John Major.
   On economic and social policy, the principle that ‘what works is what counts’ is quickly set aside when it conflicts with third-way positioning. In many cases PFI hospitals and schools do not represent good value for the taxpayer. The experiment with privatised rail services has clearly failed, and any sensible government would demand a return to public ownership on pragmatic grounds. Very few of the structural deficiencies that progressives have long identified in British capitalism - short-termism, underinvestment, low productivity, weak manufacturing - have been adequately addressed. Yet shareholder value still rules.
   Perhaps most importantly, Blairism is proving increasingly unable to sustain the broad coalition that put Labour in power and on which it promised to build a ‘progressive century’. Labour may have a working majority, but it will be making a foolish error if it thinks it can continue as before on a mandate secured with the support of only one in five voters. It needs to restore trust and create some common political ground with its lost voters before it is too late - after all, wasn’t that the purpose of modernisation in the first place?
   The real dividing line in the Labour party is not between old and new, left and right; it is between pessimism and optimism. The Blairites have become fatalistic about the world they inhabit and are no longer willing to take risks by probing the boundaries of what is possible. They think this is just about as good as it will ever get. Their opponents believe, as David Marquand argues in this week’s New Statesman, that there are other paths of modernisation, including ones that offer more radical possibilities.
   It is this optimism that sets Cook and his admirers apart from the Blairites. It’s not that this government is bad, even if it has done bad things: Cook himself used to say that this had been a more successful Labour government than any other bar Attlee’s, and he was right. It’s just that it has proved too timid and unimaginative to make the best of the extraordinary opportunities available to it to forge a new and enduring progressive settlement.
   Towards the end of his life Cook began to see in Gordon Brown someone who shared this sense of frustration. Of course they did not see eye to eye on every issue. Brown remains in the middle of what we can only hope will prove to be a temporary detour from the European path. But in his talk of a ‘progressive consensus’ and a new constitutional radicalism there is the possibility that Labour could come closer to achieving its real potential. That is perhaps reason enough to hope that he becomes prime minister while there is still time for us to find out.
   — The Guardian