Editorial
Poll monitoring by all-party
committee system
It has been a typical practice of Bangladesh’s elections that the losing party in the elections cry foul and claim that the elections had been rigged, regardless of the opinions of the election observers both from home and abroad. With such predictable reactions from the losing political party and their sympathetic sections of the civil society, the credibility of the national elections have largely had to depend on the opinions of foreign poll observers.
Although a smooth transition of power from one regime to the next, with all parties accepting the results of the elections, is a hallmark of the democratic process, this has not blossomed in Bangladesh.
The Bangladeshi Nobel laureate, Muhammad Yunus, was only referring to that predictable allegation of the losing party on Monday and suggested a committee comprising all political parties at polling centres, which would be responsible for monitoring the elections. But according to a report published in this paper on Wednesday, two advisers to the caretaker government, namely Shafiqul Haque Chowdhury and Dhiraj Kumar Nath, have rejected the idea saying that it was impractical and that such a system would in fact trigger further chaos.
While Yunus rightly pointed out that the ‘all party committee’ would be self-sufficient and thus would not require the obligatory rubber stamp of the foreign poll observers while the two advisers appeared quite in favour of letting foreign delegations ‘certify’ the upcoming elections scheduled in late January next year.
We point out that an ‘all party committee’ system, at least in theory, could indeed prove to be the most effective and worthwhile mechanism in place to adjudge the fairness of the elections. Such a committee at the polling centres representing all the political parties concerned, would in fact be the most competent and credible source whether polls were free and fair, simply because such a committee would be more conversant and aware of different methods of rigging or manipulation at the polls. Poll observers, especially the foreign ones on the other hand, might in fact overlook signals that would be obvious to the committee. Even if such a committee were to become divided at certain polling centres with mutual allegations of manipulation, it would still be a good indication of how well or how badly the elections went.
We believe, contrary to what the advisers think, that these committees would actually contribute towards making the elections all the more acceptable both to the civil society and the media. It is understandable that such an idea might not be implementable within the short period of time left for the national polls but that is certainly no reason to summarily dismiss Yunus’ idea. The caretaker government, as we have mentioned in these columns repeatedly, has not been able prove itself a neutral one by any measure. But such dismissive attitude would make it appear to be averse to furthering democracy.
Abuse of domestic aides
The cruel treatment, beating and killing of domestic aides as reported from time to time reveal another side of inhumanity which has gripped a sizeable segment of society. Domestic aides are usually among the poorest of the poor who cannot be supported by their families back in the village and seek refuge in prosperous households in cities to earn their meal in exchange for day-long drudgery, any monthly cash being a matter of discretion of employers. Their helplessness is accentuated by the fact that they are minors and often without any mentor or reference in the city and none to turn to, to seek refuge from employer’s wrath. They do not even enjoy the protection of labour laws as they belong to ‘unorganised sector’. Not that there are no laws to protect them but in their situation they can seldom have recourse to law. Consequently these domestics have learnt to suffer in silence.
Backbreaking workload without consideration for age, merciless beating and burning the limbs with red hot iron are not unknown and even killing takes place. Only in extreme cases do the police act and the media takes notice. On Monday the police arrested a housewife along with her brother-in-law from Uttara area in the city for allegedly torturing to death their domestic aide, a 15-year-old girl, as reported in yesterday’s New Age. But for timely intervention of neighbours, the case would have remained unknown. One may presume that the cases disclosed are only a tip of the iceberg. The perpetrators are usually found to be prosperous households, sometimes educated and professional people. Indeed, these atrocities are taking place so frequently that they cannot be ticked off as freakish behaviour of paranoid individuals. Then what is wrong with our social ethos, what explains such aberrant behaviour of the educated and prosperous people?
Sometime ago the Ain O Salish Kendra made a survey based on reports of 11 national dailies which revealed that in the first five months of the current year at least 35 domestic workers were tortured but in only two instances were a case filed. The ASK report also disclosed that in 2005 only 56 cases were filed against 129 cases of atrocity against domestics. But it is felt that the actual number is far more than the reported 129. A study by the Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies found that 62 per cent of the domestics who are killed, abused and raped are children. The same organisation found that 74 domestics were killed in four years from 2000 to 2004.
As the victims are poor, the police do not file cases. However, in the absence of specific laws to govern employment of domestics, the legal framework for dealing with the issue is not strong enough. The necessary law should be there not only to protect domestics from violence but also exploitation and abuse. As an agreeable contrast we also know of households which treat their domestics not only with care and compassion but as one of the family members. Unfortunately these instances are the exception when these should have been the rule.
WORTH A LOOK
Awami League’s desperate move
AMM Shawkat Ali
The question of political cost to the Awami League has two major dimensions. In the short term, it has already evoked sharp and adverse reaction within the party and most of its allies. In the longer term, the dilemma of nation-building will continue to haunt Bangladesh much to the delight of those who opposed its birth
A NEWS items in a Bengali daily on December 24 affirms that the Awami League has struck a deal with Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish as part of its efforts to win the confidence of the latter for the upcoming general elections. Under the agreement, five elements proposed by Khelafat Majlish have been conceded by the Awami League. The latter has promised to implement the five conditions, if voted to power: the right to issue fatwa will be conferred upon certified Islamic scholars; criticism or maligning of the prophet and his sahaba (companions) will be made punishable offence; no law repugnant to the Qur’an and sunnah will be passed by the parliament; qoumi madrassahs will be recognised; and those who do not recognise Muhammad as the last and best prophet will not be able to call themselves Muslims. Strange are the ways of politics.
In the evening, the electronic media also highlighted the news including reactions from different persons not directly connected with politics. These persons expressed their frustration and disappointment at what the Awami League has done. The AL general secretary denied any contract or agreement with Khelafat Majlish but admitted that it was a memorandum of understanding, which was being misinterpreted. Some top leaders of the Awami League denied having any knowledge about the deal while others confirmed that it was a memorandum of understanding. In the evening of December 24, some Christian leaders called on the AL president, Sheikh Hasina. She reiterated her party’s commitment to secular ideals. Leaders of other parties, mainly the left bloc, emphatically asserted that they were not part of the agreement and have no responsibility to implement the same.
From 1975 onwards, the Awami League, in line with other progressive forces, debunked the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its founder, the late president Ziaur Rahman, for having provided Islamic tinge to the constitution. This involved insertion of Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim in, and deletion of the word ‘secularism’ as one of the fundamental principles of state policy and article 38 from, the constitution. After Ziaur Rahman, Ershad in 1988, declared Islam as the state religion of the republic with the qualification that other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in Bangladesh. The cycle thus was apparently complete.
In the constitution of 1972, the principle of secularism was left vague and undefined. In Bangla, it meant dharma nirapekshata, i.e. freedom for all religions without the state being party to any. However, the constitution of the time did contain explanation for a roadmap to realise the principle of secularism. The relevant provisions asserted that secularism shall be realised by the elimination of communalism in all its forms, granting of the state political status in favour of any religion, abuse of religion for political purposes and any discrimination against, or persecution of, persons practising a particular religion. These are basically a list of abuses. However, abuse of religion for political purposes got full recognition in terms of enforcement in article 38. It read: ‘Every citizen shall have the right to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of morality or public order. Provided that no person shall have the right to form, or be a member of, any communal or other association or union which in the name of or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues, a political purpose.’ The proviso to article 38 was omitted by the Second Proclamation Order 1976.
An eminent scholar of Bangladesh points out in one of his writings that after declaration of Islam as state religion during the Ershad era, there were street protests. However, such protests were limited to urban areas and were backed by the intelligentsia and some political parties. It was not a mass protest. Another interesting fact mentioned by the same scholar is that in 1988, there were as many as three writ petitions in the High Court but the verdicts of the cases are not known as they were not decided. It is felt that this remains an attractive area of research by social scientists. It may well be that the dynamics of politics dampened the enthusiasm of those who sought judicial remedy from the highest seat of justice.
Like secularism, the word communalism was also left vague and undefined in the constitution of 1972. It simply spoke of elimination of communalism in all its forms. It is understood that not everything can or need be defined in the constitution. It is even more so in respect of fundamental principles which are not judicially enforceable. The proviso to article 38 already mentioned was inserted in light of past experience with Pakistan, in particular, the experiences of the war of independence. The basis of Pakistan nationhood envisaged a separate homeland for Muslims. The atrocities of Pakistani army in 1971 exploded that myth. However, the dilemma in nation-building continued. Are we Bengalis, Bengali Muslims or Bangladeshis? One aspect of this issue surfaced early in 1972 when Manbendra Larma objected to the use of the word Bengali in the constitution at the time when the Constitution Bill was under discussion in the then constituent assembly.
Until 1996 and even now the Awami League’s commitment to secularism has been used by its political opponents to mean that it has no respect for Islam although Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country. The other weapon used against the Awami League is its so called pro-Indian stance. No wonder that when the Awami League came to power in 1996, although chanting of the words Jai Bangla was not altogether discarded, it took pains to put up a public face of its Islamic stance. It found it increasingly difficult to strike a balance between its commitment to secularism and professing Islamic values and using Islamic symbols. The highly controversial deal, which it has agreed with Khelafat Majlish, may be seen as the culmination of its political strategy to strengthen its public face of Islam. The question is: will it help the Awami League in the upcoming election or is it going to be a costly mistake. Where will the balance of convenience or inconvenience lie?
Leaving aside this issue for the moment, one can say that the leaders of major political parties are clearly subordinating the issue of nation-building to short-term partisan gains. The trends of power play, of marriage of convenience do not do auger well for Bangladesh. The emergence of Bangladesh signalled the rejection of religion-based nationalism. Now one can see symptoms of failure in national integration following primacy given to religion to the exclusion of social, economic and political development that satisfies the needs of various communities with diverse cultural, ethnic and socio-economic background.
The question of political cost to the Awami League has two major dimensions. In the short term, it has already evoked sharp and adverse reaction within the party and most of its allies. The latter has openly demanded cancellation of the memorandum of understanding. Besides the urban intelligentsia who are sympathisers of the Awami League, the young generation voters from secular stream of education and all those who have humanistic ideals close to their hearts are likely to be alienated from the party. Add to this the fact that the sentiments of at least 12 per cent members of other communities not subscribing to Islamic faith will also be hurt. At the end, it might well be a costly mistake. The election rivals of the Awami League will also seize this opportunity arguing that the Awami League is not a party to rely upon. In the longer term, the dilemma of nation-building will continue to haunt Bangladesh much to the delight of those who opposed its birth both at home and abroad.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
