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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

BARRISTER Mainul Husein, having been called at the English Bar from one of the Inns in England, now an adviser in charge of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (although there is no existence of any parliament now) in the non-party caretaker government, is reported to have said while speaking to newsmen after inaugurating the REHAB Mela (fair) on February 20 that democracy does not mean election (the daily Janakantha, February 21, p.12). He then elaborated the definition of democracy by adding that to establish good governance for the people by holding a decent and honest election means democracy. Nobody will disagree. But, the question is regarding the meaning of ‘decent and honest election.’ Both the terms suffer from vagueness. The non-party caretaker government is a creation of the constitution of Bangladesh (see article 58C to article 58E of the constitution). The expression ‘decent and honest’, used by Mainul Husein, does not find a place anywhere in the constitution which creates the non-party caretaker government of which he is an important member.
   The constitution, however, clearly and specifically lays down what sort of an election of members of parliament is intended by it and also lays down what must be the role of the non-party caretaker government and on whom the entire responsibility for holding an election intended by the constitution rests.
   II
   It must be examined first of all on whom the entire responsibility for holding the election rests. In this connection, article 119 being relevant must be quoted: ‘(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls to the office of President and to Parliament and the conduct of such election shall vest in the Election Commission which shall, in accordance with this Constitution and any other law -
   a. hold election to the office of President;
   b. hold election of members of Parliament;
   c. delimit the constituencies for the purpose of holding election of members of Parliament; and
   d. prepare electoral rolls for the purpose of election to the office of President and to Parliament.
   (2) The Election Commission shall perform such functions, in addition to those specified in the foregoing clauses, as may be prescribed by the Constitution or any other law.’
   So, the constitution vests the Election Commission and the Election Commission alone, and no other authority, with absolute power of superintendence, control and direction in the four matters specified in article 119 of the constitution which is the supreme law of Bangladesh. In these four matters, election of members of parliament included, the Election Commission has unfettered powers and jurisdiction and its powers are subject only to the ‘Constitution and any other law’ as laid down in article 119. These ‘any other laws’ include the Representation of the People Order, 1972, the Conduct of Election Rules, 1972, the Electoral Rolls Ordinance, 1982, the Electoral Rolls Rules, 1982 and the Delimitation of Constituencies Ordinance, 1986, as amended from time to time.
   For our present purpose, we are mainly concerned with the Constitution, the Representation of the People Order, 1972, the Electoral Rolls Ordinance, 1982 and the Electoral Rolls Rules, 1982.
   Apart from article 119, clause (4) of article 118 of the constitution unequivocally reiterates the absolute independence of the Election Commission in the following words: ‘The Election Commission shall be independent in the exercise of its functions and subject only to this Constitution and any other law.’
   III
   It has already been made clear that constitutionally, the Election Commission is the sole authority to prepare the electoral rolls for holding the election of members of parliament and for superintending, controlling and directing the entire electoral process and no other organ of the government can interfere with this absolute jurisdiction of the Election Commission although the constitution has assigned certain functions to the other organs, the executive organ in particular, in connection with parliamentary election. In this connection, article 126 of the constitution may be referred to: ‘It shall be the duty of all executive authorities to assist the Election Commission in the discharge of its functions.’
   The constitution, therefore, mandates that all executive authorities must only assist the Election Commission in the discharge of its functions. The executive authorities must not mingle the expression, ‘assist’ with ‘dictate’. But that is what is being practised in Bangladesh and the successive Election Commissions meekly submitted to such dictates forgetting, either intentionally, or, on account of ignorance, its constitutional powers, duties and responsibilities and causing unwanted political turmoil in the country. The ultimate consequences of the rigged Magura election is one of the many examples of the consequences that occurred as a result of the failure of the electoral process for which the then Election Commission was squarely responsible.
   It is, however, difficult for me to believe that the Election Commission forgot its constitutional powers and duties and submitted to the dictates of others on account of ignorance of law, because, for nearly 25 years since independence the judges of the Supreme Court composed the Election Commission. It is difficult for me to believe that the judges of the Supreme Court were ignorant of law.
   The only conclusion that can, therefore, be drawn is that the Election Commission had been intentionally turning a blind eye to the constitution and the laws and acting at the dictates of others and this unconstitutional and unethical conduct of the Election Commission and the shameless acts of those at whose dictates it had so long acted unconstitutionally, illegally and unethically are the major causes of the grave crisis which the country faces today.
   IV
   What is the constitutional role of the non-party caretaker government? Article 98D of the Constitution defines the role and function of the non-party caretaker government as follows: ‘(1) The Non-party Caretaker Government shall discharge its functions as an interim government and shall carry on the routine functions of such government with the aid and assistance of persons in the services of the Republic, and except in the case of necessity for the discharge of such functions it shall not take any policy decisions.
   (2) The Non-party Caretaker Government shall give to the Election Commission all possible aid and assistance that may be required for holding the general election of members of Parliament peacefully, fairly and impartially.’
   No other power than what is specified in article 58D of the constitution is vested in the non-party caretaker government, which is, according to the intent expressed in the constitution, merely an interim government to carry on the routine functions of the government and mainly to aid and assist the Election Commission to hold a peaceful, fair and impartial election for electing members of parliament at the earliest possible period not exceeding ninety days from the date of dissolution of parliament and quit by handing over powers to those who command the majority in parliament. The mandate for holding the election as quickly as possible not exceeding ninety days from the date of dissolution of parliament is in clause (3) of article 123 of the constitution which runs as follows: ‘A general election of members of Parliament shall be held within ninety days after Parliament is dissolved, whether by reason of the expiration of its term or otherwise than by reason of such expiration.’
   Although the above provision is in general mandatory, it has to be interpreted, in a very rarely exceptional circumstance, to be directory, as no consequence has been attached to the above clause if election becomes an impossibility on account of extremely exceptional circumstances. Such a circumstance can occur only once in a blue moon and cannot be made a regular practice.
   After the last dissolution of parliament on October 27, 2006, such a blue moon occurred and that was because of the failure of the Election Commission to discharge its duties and hold an election as mandated in the constitution. The Election Commission headed by a judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court had most unethically prepared an electoral roll and almost completed all preparation for holding an unfair and palpably rigged election doubtless at the dictates of certain politically interested persons or parties. The result was that both the Non-party Caretaker Government formed after the dissolution of parliament and the then Election Commission were replaced. Emergency had to be proclaimed, fundamental rights of the people were curtailed and a new Non-party Caretaker Government and a new Election Commission were formed.
   V
   The people heaved a great sigh of relief being relieved of ‘oborodh’, street agitations, riots, murder of innocent people and all-round chaos throughout the country. The people also placed high hopes on the present Non-party Caretaker Government and the newly-constituted Election Commission. At least, I expected that the present Election Commission will, immediately after taking oath of office, sit down for real business instead of wasting time by giving television interviews and expressing that the Election Commission will be turned into an institution of pride of the people of Bangladesh. Instead, they should have immediately summoned all the Registration Officers and directed them to undertake revision of the electoral rolls as required by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Ordinance, 1982 and strictly according to the procedures laid down in rules 4 to 17 of the Electoral Rolls Rules, 1982 and finally publish the revised electoral rolls as required by rule 20 of these rules.
   My experience in the Election Commission says that if the Election Commission and all concerned start work in right earnest, the revision of the electoral rolls will not take more than four months, but, in order to achieve it, proper supervision by the Election Commission and drastic action against the recalcitrant and indolent officers and employees engaged in the work of revision will be necessary.
   After final publication of the revised electoral roll the Election Commission has got to announce the election schedule as required by section 11 of the Representation of the People Order, 1972, without helplessly looking to the non-party caretaker government which has nothing to do or take any decisions so far as the general election of members of parliament is concerned except providing such possible aid and assistance to the Election Commission as it may require for holding a free and fair election, or, to use the expression in the constitution, for holding the election ‘peacefully, fairly and impartially’.
   The newspaper reports show that the Election Commission is considering the question of amendment of the present election laws and rules. At the present moment, no new rules are required. The existing rules are sufficient for holding a general election of members of parliament as intended by the constitution.
   Apart from rendering whatever possible aid and assistance are required by the Election Commission, if the non-party caretaker government takes steps to prevent the commission of election offences and prosecute the offenders who may indulge in these offences, it can render such aid and assistance to the Election Commission as are intended by the constitution for holding a free and fair election.
   Time-killing under the excuse of bringing about radical and revolutionary change in the election laws will be disastrous. The existing laws and rules are sufficient for ensuring a peaceful, fair and impartial election, provided that the persons who apply these laws and rules are men of character, integrity and fearlessness.
   I would like to clear a misgiving that might arise from this article. This article by no means conveys that bringing to book the corrupt and the criminals is not the function of the present non-party caretaker government. Certainly, to take action against corruption is the routine function of any government and as such, to haul up the criminals, how high they might have been, being routine functions, is within the powers of the present government and is covered by clause (1) of article 58D of the Constitution.
   VI
   For all past unfair and rigged elections in Bangladesh, human elements, not the laws and the rules, are responsible. So, what is required to ensure a truly representative government according to the aspiration of the people by holding a free and fair election, is an Election Commission composed of men who will be true to the oath of their office.
   Lastly, at the fag end of my life, I can only hope and pray that good sense will prevail and the present non-party caretaker government shall act strictly according to the constitution and set an example of establishing a constitutional representative government of the parliamentary form as early as possible and save the country from a graver crisis than it ever faced.
   Time is fast running out and a dangerous crisis is looming large in the horizon. So, the need is for establishing a representative government as early as possible. If we think that until a Gandhi or an Abraham Lincoln is created, the non-party caretaker government, which is a nominated interim government, should continue to govern the country assuring the people to establish Mainul Husein’s so-called good governance, disaster is inevitable, because, the prerequisite of good governance is a representative government. A government whose power is limited by the constitution only to carry out the routine duties of the government and which has no power to take policy decisions and is not accountable to anyone can never establish ‘good governance’. The function of this government is to aid and assist the Election Commission to restore representative government by a free and fair election. I can only hope that the non-party caretaker government and the Election Commission will discharge their duties imposed on them by the constitution as early as possible.
   My last word will be that the controversial politicians who have signally failed to run the country according to accepted democratic norms and after capturing the throne of power benefited themselves at the cost of the poor people of this country should immediately announce their retirement from politics in order to facilitate an early free and fair election for establishing a representative government of the people and for the people. There are still thoroughly honest, patriotic and selfless persons among the politicians and the people know them. If the corrupt and dishonest leave the political arena, the people will never make mistake in electing the right persons from amongst the politicians who can establish good governance.

The first part of our track-2 Indo-Bangla dialogue on media and culture took place more than a year ago. March 6, 2007 onwards the second half of the dialogue is scheduled to be held in Dhaka. The CPD-IIC dialogue has been designed to be held in four parts on the following range of issues: trade, media and culture, security and politics. Each subject is to be discussed and debated on once in Dhaka and then again in Delhi or vice versa. Thus, in effect, the dialogue has been conceptualised as eight meetings between the civil societies of Bangladesh and India. Three such meetings – two on trade and one on media and culture – have already been
   completed.
   While preparing for our second round of talks on media and culture, the niggling worry about ‘actualisation of ideas’ refuses to budge from my mind.
   Last January, Mahfuz Anam, editor of the Daily Star, had made an impassioned appeal for a new start between the two neighbours by breaking of old mindsets of suspicion and prejudice. He had reminded us that Indo-Bangladesh relations are hostage to two fundamental follies of the mind. One being the Bangladeshi habit of viewing India with ignorance and suspicion while the other was the Indian view of Bangladesh which is beset with ignorance coupled with arrogance. He had emphasised that the media could play a big role in fostering understanding if it could break out of its tendency to reinforce popular public perception. BG Verghese from the Indian delegation readily agreed that a gap in knowledge on key areas occurs because of a lack of communication which sets off a chain reaction of misconceptions, mistrust and negative mindsets.
   There had been several discussions on the mindless and intolerant visa regimes which prevented journalists to visit each other’s country. All delegates agreed that these obstacles perpetuated an information deficiency leaving a large scope for misinformation. The idea of pressure groups and lobbies was floated.
   In the arena of culture, it was readily acknowledged that cultural exchanges could open doors of communication. Joint art and music exhibitions, studies tours between educational institutes, festivals, workshops, trainings and a lot more were proposed.
   Undoubtedly, our January 2007 dialogue came up with innumerable plans which for various reasons never got translated into action. Who, I ask myself, is responsible for the actualisation of great ideas?
   I keep on remembering the remark of my friend, the dynamic editor of the Southasian magazine Himal, Kanak Mani Dixit, that, ‘Southasia is made up of 21 people, their friends and family.’ What Kanak, I believe, meant is that the same faces are seen around tables and roundtables of discussions and there is rarely a move to build a popular constituency for or against issues of public interest. Public diplomacy between India and Bangladesh suffers from this same predicament. Ideas galore are put on the table – each unique and remarkable. Most, however, get shelved due to lack of dissemination. Ideas are never taken to the public domain.
   While most social and economic forums have acknowledged that the state alone cannot bring about changes in policy, diplomacy has remained in the hands of the state. Track – 2, though a non-state project, continues to follow the norms and regulations of state initiatives. Fifteen dialogues have already taken place with little or no information about them
   available in the public domain.
   It has to be acknowledged that, the media explosion and the information revolution that have swept the globe in the 1990s have also created a complex information-intensive global environment in which international crises play out directly into domestic political debates of nations and domestic issues are debated by foreign audiences. Given this explosion of information, foreign policy, an exclusive realm managed by diplomats behind closed doors, must also be democratized.
   Though public diplomacy is basically what the state does to explain itself to other nations, it has to be acknowledged that it is only by harnessing the support of domestic actors that the state can enhance its soft power through information sharing and attraction. Soft power is what arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals and policies.
   In an information-intensive world, there is a competition for people’s attention and imagination. This competition is taking place in a global public domain which ‘exists’ in transnational non-territorial spatial formations, and is anchored in norms and expectations as well as institutional networks and circuits within, across and beyond states.
   In a nutshell – this is a different world, as it was never ever before. Therefore, public diplomacy too must shape itself around this new landscape.
   The challenge for state actors in such an environment is to make themselves attractive and relevant as sources of soft power. This involves efforts by the state at forging meaningful connections with soft-power assets associated with non-state structures at home and abroad. Value and image assets that constitute the basis of the attractiveness of a state are embedded within societal actors of the respective state. What foreign ministries (who represent the official face of a state abroad) try to do is to harness the potential of the positive images and values associated with domestic non-state actors. Clearly, directive steering is not possible in a democratic society and non-state actors often choose not to let themselves be associated with any state, be it the one where they are located or another one. In such a situation, governments (and notably foreign ministries) must try to find issue areas of common concern, shared values and common images that would enable cooperation and mutual support between governmental activities and activities of societal actors, which would provide mutual benefits in terms of soft power.
   Obviously, Indo-Bangla cooperation, too, has to be built on a networking between state and non-state actors. Could a semi-autonomous body be the answer to the dilemma of ‘actualization of ideas’? If countries can have a joint chamber of commerce, why not a joint organisation which can enhance cultural, social and academic cooperation?

COLOMBO: President Mahinda Rajapaksa further strengthened his hold over the popular imagination with a remarkable performance in China accompanied by a baby elephant and an entourage exceeding 260. The media reported a series of diplomatic triumphs in China, with the Chinese government pledging to support Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism and signing several major economic contracts to develop the country’s infrastructure. The president also lobbied for Chinese investments by reassuring potential investors that the violence in the country was confined to a small part of the country.
   While appreciating the president’s statesmanlike efforts to create a positive impression of Sri Lanka, the uphill nature of his task has also to be noted. It was during the president’s visit to China that six ambassadors from some of the most important countries in the world almost got killed when an LTTE mortar bomb fell into their vicinity. The problem is that Sri Lanka is a small country, and so what happens in a small part of the country also impacts upon the rest of it. If the LTTE’s mortar fire had been a little more accurate Sri Lanka would have been making negative headlines the world over, even in China.
   The LTTE mortar attack on Batticaloa airport that nearly claimed the lives of ambassadors belonging to the United States, Japan, Germany, France and Italy, and which injured the Italian ambassador, is indicative of the brutal nature of the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. These diplomats were on a humanitarian mission to the east along with several UN officials and the government minister for Human Rights and Disaster Management to assess the condition of war-displaced people and the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure when this incident occurred.
   Soon after the mortar attack, the LTTE sought to turn the tables on the government by alleging a deliberate dereliction of its duty in failing to inform the LTTE about the visit. Indeed, the LTTE made much of the government’s failure to inform the international monitors of the visit. As both the government and LTTE claim to uphold the Ceasefire Agreement, the government could have made use of that procedure to ensure the safety of its charges. The Ceasefire Agreement made the Nordic monitors the main agency of communication between the government and LTTE. There have been internal differences within the government itself about whose responsibility was it to ensure that all necessary precautions had been taken.
   
   LTTE message
   In recent times the LTTE has become more outspoken in its criticism of the international community. Their message on the fifth anniversary of the Ceasefire Agreement contained a strong indictment of the role played by the international community in the past few years. The LTTE charged that ‘the international community chose to unfairly take punitive measures against the LTTE, seriously undermining the LTTE’s status as an equal party in the negotiation process, and thereby weakening the peace process itself.’ Much of the LTTE’s recent statement was devoted to pointing out the shortcomings in the role played by the international community, and venting their anger and frustration.
   There is little reason to doubt that the LTTE knew of the visit, which was by no means a secret even in Colombo’s diplomatic and political circles. This was a humanitarian visit by the leading members of the international community who have been assisting in the relief and rehabilitation efforts in the north and east. The NGO and government system in the Batticaloa area had been mobilised to be on their best footing for the visit. The adverse international fallout on the LTTE if the attack had been fatal would have been high. But making their point, that they would not permit themselves to be marginalised in the north and east regardless of military outcomes, appears to have mattered more to the LTTE than the short-term cost of their adventure.
   Although the LTTE claimed ignorance about the diplomatic visit, and expressed regret over the incident, the message they sent to the international community and everyone else concerned is clear. It is that what happens within the north and east is their business. Recent military reversals on the ground notwithstanding, the LTTE could be expected to hold to the position that nothing must happen in the north and east without their consent being obtained in some way or the other. Despite the change in military balance and shifts in lines of control, the LTTE’s military presence in the north and east is still evident as this
   incident highlights.
   The further breakdown in relations between the international community and the LTTE might seem advantageous to the Sri Lankan government.  It could lead to further international sanctions being placed on the LTTE. But even if such measures do lead to a weakening of the LTTE, the LTTE will in all likelihood still remain capable of inflicting severe damage on their opponents. The ability of the LTTE to fire its mortars into Batticaloa airport shows that the defeats suffered by them in the east, and which has been made so much of by the government, have not led to their total elimination from the east.
   
   Irony
   It is ironic that this evidence of LTTE tenacity should come from the ground at the same time as former members of the government accuse it of making false claims regarding military progress in the east. Former foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera is spearheading a political campaign that claims that the government is fighting the war for political mileage rather than for real victory. The fact that the government is spending more than 25 per cent of the government’s budget on the war, and the associated kickbacks, could lead to questions about the lack of quick results. The ability of the LTTE to fire their mortars into Batticaloa airport would lend credence to such allegations.
   So far, however, President Rajapaksa’s image as a strong governmental leader who has taken the battle to the LTTE remains undiminished by what is happening on the ground. Despite the economic hardships that the people are undergoing and accusations of over centralisation of power in the president’s office, most people remain supportive of the president on account of his government’s victories, and hardline stance, against the LTTE. The government in its statement on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the Ceasefire Agreement even made it so bold to say that it ‘does not see the conflict as an ethnic conflict.’ Such assertions were also made in the 1980s and 1990s.
   The problem with an analysis that limits the government’s conflict with the LTTE to one of terrorism is that it leads to an over-reliance on the military option. It is unfortunate that the government’s military gains have been accompanied by political regression. One of the ambassadors who was on the ill-fated humanitarian visit to Batticaloa, Robert Blake of the United States, has been criticised by the JHU, which is a coalition partner of the government, for saying a military solution is not possible. The LTTE’s mortar attack on Batticaloa airport on this occasion, coupled with the memory of their devastating attack on Katunayake International Airport in 2001, shows just how difficult it could be to militarily secure any area from attack by the LTTE.
   The silver lining in the Batticaloa attack will be if it leads to a wake-up call to the government that a military solution is not possible, and that a resort to the rhetoric of the 1980s and 1990s will not take the country to peace and prosperity. By attacking the ambassadorial delegation the LTTE has once again demonstrated its military capacity and its ruthlessness, and the government’s vulnerability. It is imperative to deal politically with the LTTE if the country is to be saved from more such attacks that cause fear and destruction, and do harm to the country’s international reputation.
   Accordingly, the government needs to speed up the All-Party Process that aims at generating a political solution to the ethnic conflict which can be placed before the people of the country and used as a basis for political negotiations with the LTTE. It is also necessary for the government to take a stand on the devolution proposals put forward by the Experts Committee and by the Chairman of the All-Party Representatives Committee. At present this all-party process is at a standstill due to the ruling party being remiss in making its own proposals to it. The president’s international statesmanship needs to be complemented by statesmanship at home.
   Jehan Perera is media director of the National Peace Council in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He can be reached at: Jehan Perera jehanp@yahoo.com

Fayezee and his fake certificate

It is strange that the Chittagong University did not take action when the matter was first brought to their attention several years ago. Indeed, the evil hand of political laxity kept them mum.
   I am sure that this instance of degree tampering in universities is merely the tip of the iceberg of thousands of such instances. The government should, firstly, comb certificates/qualifications of government servants who may have ‘awarded’ themselves university degrees to get jobs or promotion.
   This Justice who has fooled the people of Bangladesh must get his ‘just reward’ as decreed in criminal code.
   Imtiyaz Husain
   Gulshan, Dhaka
   

* * *
   We are proud of our journalists and freedom-loving lawyers who waged a war against appointment of persons with fraudulent LLB certificates in the judiciary. Now faith in university administration has also been restored.
   Next, we shall be waiting to see what happens to those who hampered the smooth running of the judiciary. Even if that includes persons in exalted positions like president, prime minister, law minister etc., the law should take its own course
   Haq
   On e-mail
   * * *
   Though belated, at long last, justice has been served. The Anti-Corruption Commission must take up the matter immediately and set an example to this morally corrupt, so-called intellectual with no conscience and shame. How he reached this position is anybody’s guess.
   He has humiliated the very institution called JUSTICE, and all of us, simple common people, who felt some pride of being educated. He has humiliated all of us— the society, the other university graduates, and all educated persons. Shame on him!
   The caretaker government should see that justice is served. This is a case which deserves no mercy. It should be an eye opener, and an example for all the educated crooks, proudly flaunting their ill-gotten wealth and power.
   SA Mansoor
   Gulshan, Dhaka

---