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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

New Age: In the early days of this interim government and the state of emergency you had welcomed both…
   Sheikh Hasina: That a state of emergency is widely welcomed by the people is almost unheard of in this world. But this government was welcomed by nearly everyone. That was because the people were apprehensive about the January 22 elections. They wanted to be able to vote at their will but they knew that would have been an impossibility. That is why the Awami League’s movement against the January 22 elections had such popular support. Our movement was a reflection of the public’s demand. The fact that an incompetent, puppet regime like [president and then chief adviser] Iajuddin Ahmed’s was coming to an end naturally was a welcome sign.
   We also had hopes that this government would do what the previous caretaker government did not do as far as laying the foundations for free and fair elections is concerned — like reforming the Election Commission and its laws, rectifying the voters’ roll, introducing transparent ballot boxes, etc. We had also hoped that all of that would be done soon and the elections would be held earlier rather than later. But what we see now is that not only have they not done anything substantive to hold the elections in the near future, but they are also actively trying to delay the elections for as long as possible.
   On top of all that, they now seem intent on going after me, despite the fact that I had extended my support to the government initially.
   NA: If you say that this government’s coming to power was a result of your movement against the previous caretaker regime, then do you feel betrayed by them now?
   SH: The biggest betrayal was that they wouldn’t let me return to my own country. It’s no more a matter of feeling betrayed, I am literally seeing the betrayal unfold in front of my very eyes. In fact, I was shocked by the way they treated me.
   NA: Do you regret having said that you would ratify this government’s actions if and when voted to power?
   SH: I talked of ratification out of a sense of responsibility, because this government is a result of our movement, and because there are constitutional caveats due to the nature of this government. All emergency orders, for example, will have to be ratified by the next parliament. Therefore, I felt a responsibility, as long as this government kept its word to work towards free, fair and early elections.
   NA: So until that point when you made the ratification statement, you were confident that the interim government was on the right track?
   SH: I don’t want to comment further on this. I said before that I was shocked by the sudden change in their attitude towards me.
   NA: But questions do remain about the constitutionality and the mandate of this government, don’t they?
   SH: Of course, those questions remain. Even they know that. And this is why I talked about ratification. You see, our nation has a bad record when it comes to power transfer. I would say that except for when my government left office in 2001, never in the history of Bangladesh have we had a proper and smooth transfer of power. There has either been bloodshed, or one-sided elections, or governments stepping down in the face of popular movements. My fear is that we don’t go back to those old ways, return to the trend begun by Ziaur Rahman in the 1970s.
   NA: Do you think there is a chance of similar events unfolding now?
   SH: For the government to be sure of ratification, they have to form a new party, and a new party can only be borne of corruption — moral, ideological and financial. If you want to attract politicians from different parties, you do that by pressuring them with threats of lawsuits. If you want to attract musclemen, you do that by offering them some sort of spoils. That’s how it has always happened. Once they revert to that process, then there will be no free, fair elections. There will have to be rigging to bring back to power those who have already been rejected by the people.
   So to avert such a situation, to keep democracy and constitutionality going, and to assure them that they can feel safe with free, fair elections voting in truly democratic parties — that is why I talked of ratification.
   NA: Talking of elections, the government has talked about late 2008, but it seems that the elections may be pushed back to as late as 2009. How do you see the political situation unfolding then?
   SH: The thing is, it took just nine months to liberate Bangladesh, but they claim that they need 18 months to prepare for elections. From where have they arbitrarily come up with that figure? For instance, the NDI has said it is possible to update the voters’ roll within four to six weeks. But this government seems to think otherwise. If they deliberately keep pushing the elections back, then I doubt free, fair polls will be held at all. We will be going back to 1977, 78, 79.
   My question is: Whose interest will the delay serve? Will it be to wipe away from the public’s memory the misrule, misadventures of the BNP-Jamaat regime? Or will it be to clear the field for those people who have utterly failed in politics in the past, whose deposits have been forfeited in past elections?
   NA: Will any deliberate delay in holding the elections spur your party into some kind of action?
   SH: I will try to make contact with the interim government the moment I reach home, and I will try to get a sense of their plans and justifications for their timeframe. I hope to receive satisfactory answers, and my party will cooperate as long as we are convinced that the goal is restoration of democracy and elections at the earliest possible time. But if the electorate and the people lose patience, if they interpret the government’s actions as suspicious, then my party will have to reconsider on the basis of the people’s will.
   NA: Elections aside, the government seems to be taking policy decisions in other matters as well, like privatisation, FDI, economic policy, etc. Do you think they have the right or the mandate to do so?
   SH: This government took oath under article 58(c). Just a reading of that article is enough to know that their constitutional mandate is only to run the day-to-day activities of the government and deliver free, fair elections.
   NA: Would you call certain actions of the government anti-poor?
   SH: Let’s talk about slum evictions. There is a High Court order that says that no slum-dweller can be evicted before steps have been taken by the government to rehabilitate them elsewhere. In fact, my government had taken such a scheme, giving micro-credit for home building in the villages and bringing the evicted people under the Vulnerable Group Feeding programme for six months. The rationale is that the government cannot just leave its people out to dry.
   Same is the case for hawker evictions. You have to allow people to generate some income if you cannot ensure employment for them. You cannot on the one hand not deliver on your responsibility to provide your people with certain basic needs, and on the other hand stop them from taking care of themselves.
   The prices of essentials are also a significant issue. Instead of coming down, prices have gone up. That hurts the poor and the middle classes more than anything else.
   NA: Doesn’t all of this make the case for representative democracy stronger?
   SH: Of course it does. Only democracy can speak for the masses, for the poor. The problem is constant military intervention and corruption by the powers that be in our country has established a tradition of vote fixing and vote rigging, which has actually taken the power away from the people, hence making them of lesser importance in our democracy. If true democracy was allowed to flourish with the people’s vote allowed to be reflected in the outcome of elections, then whoever went to power would have to work for the people. Unfortunately, we have a system where those in power think that the massive amounts of money they make abusing power will allow them to buy their way back to power.
   But yes, to speak for the people, to uphold the people’s interest, there is no alternative to true, representative democracy. An unelected, un-mandated government can never deliver on the people’s will.
   NA: What do you feel should be the role of the army in all of this?
   SH: The army’s role in the state is very clearly demarcated in the constitution and the army service rules. Those are the laws that should govern the army at all times, including now.
   NA: What is your take on the current anti-corruption drive and its emphasis on targeting politicians and politically powerful people?
   SH: There is a group of people who have perhaps achieved other things in life or have made money, rightly or wrongly, and now all they crave for is the status and power of running the country. Sometimes I wonder if all this is a way of fulfilling those ambitions. The thing is, if somebody is corrupt, then by all means investigate them and try them. Now especially, with the newly-rejuvenated Anti-Corruption Commission, that should not be a problem. But the intention behind the current drive seems to be more about wiping the country clean of politicians and not corruption. The funny thing is those who want to rid the nation of politicians have ambitions of becoming politicians themselves.
   Why else would they bracket all politicians together? Why should they bracket me with the people who have looted the country of thousands of crores of takas? I am a politician above all else — a successful politician who has served the nation as the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, and led movements that have established the people’s rights and will. In fact, everything that the current government is proposing to do now has been proposed by my party and myself before. They are merely repeating and reiterating my words and solutions.
   If you are going to act on my demands and reinforce my politics, then by what logic are you attempting to keep me away? Why are you bracketing me with thieves?
   NA: If anyone from your party is proven to be corrupt after investigation, what action will you take?
   SH: That’s fine. Investigate by all means. But the question is: Will that investigation be motivated? If the intention is to falsely or forcibly implicate popular politicians who are difficult to defeat in elections and get a judgement that keeps them from contesting in elections, then we have to term the investigation as motivated and mala fide. That would be pre-planned victimisation.
   The constitution says the people are the owners of the republic. So let the people decide. If the people are willing to vote someone in, then let them. Being in the way of the people by fabricating charges would contravene the constitution.
   NA: The government is reported to have found large sums of money in accounts that are in your name…
   SH: First of all, why is the government not clearly stating any of these so-called findings? Secondly, I am the president of the largest political party in the country. Therefore, the party’s accounts are in my name as well as the general secretary and the treasurer. I have the signing authority of those accounts. There is also the Bangabandhu Memorial Trust and I am the chairman of the trustee board. They cannot claim that the party’s and the trust’s accounts are my personal accounts. If they do so, then either they are uneducated or motivated.
   NA: What about the new anti-corruption law, which turns jurisprudence on its head and assumes those arrested to be guilty until proven innocent?
   SH: Again, that same motivated attempts. Again, the same ambitious people playing their hands. If you know you cannot pin somebody down on false charges due to lack of evidence, then, of course, you will resort to these means. Or if you want to pressure people to come around to your way.
   We all know who have engaged in corruption. And wealth is something you can’t hide. In fact, those who have made money in the past few years have not even tried to hide their new wealth. They have flaunted it. Then why such difficulty to catch them, and why such attempts to implicate all and sundry? There must be an ill intention.
   NA: So you think the government is charging the wrong people of corruption?
   SH: I think the government is being selective, and that has raised suspicion. Take for example the mayors of the six city corporations. Dhaka’s mayor is known as Mr Ten Per Cent. He has amassed huge wealth in the last few years. The Barisal mayor is known as a murderer. He even attempted to mastermind an attack on my motorcade once. They are suddenly saints, but the two mayors from my party who won elections against all odds during the BNP-Jamaat regime have been arrested.
   Take the case of former army officers who have engaged in corruption as politicians. Altaf Chowdhury, the former home minister, has been involved in all kinds of crime and corruption. The MP for Gulshan has usurped massive stretches of land in his area. They have not been investigated or harassed.
   And what about the former relief minister? If so much relief material has been seized from across the country, isn’t it only natural that the then relief minister should be arrested as well? Or the man who was the state minister for home affairs when ten trucks of arms were seized in Chittagong, what about him?
   It is as if the interim government is a washing machine — whatever dirty laundry they decide to take in comes out clean. Anyone who is willing to join their efforts to form a new party will be deemed clean, whatever their crimes or corruptions of the past. Isn’t there a massive contradiction and hypocrisy being practised here by the government?
   NA: Adviser to the interim government Mainul Hosein has claimed that the attempts to send yourself and Khaleda Zia into exile were prompted by leaders within your two parties…
   SH: Let me return and talk to Mainul Hosein myself. Only then I will know what he meant and who he meant.
   NA: What is your opinion of a sentiment held among the ruling quarters that all the ills of our politics boil down to the two leaders, you and Khaleda Zia?
   SH: I will again say, whatever problems I have talked about over the years, whatever solutions I have suggested over the years, those in power now are reiterating exactly those words. Then why am I being asked to step aside? And why am I being bracketed with somebody else as ‘dui netri’? I have been prime minister, and the country made tremendous progress during those times. Why are they so shy about mentioning those landmarks? And I wasn’t in power in the last five years when misrule prevailed. I did not create this mess. Then why this ‘dui netri’ rhetoric? Why this bracketing?
   NA: Are you planning any reforms to the party at this time?
   SH: Reforms are a continuous process for the Awami League. We have always undertaken reforms as per the need of the times. We changed from the Awami Muslim League to the Awami League in a major reform that was geared towards secular democratic politics. We had vice-presidents, then we changed that to a presidium. Our economic policy changed after the fall of the Soviet Union. We consulted with partners all over the world, I attended the conference of the Socialist International, I came to London to meet with the then Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock — then we changed our economic policy from a strictly socialist one. We constantly reform and better our party constitution. Are these not examples of major reforms?
   Nobody needs to lecture the Awami League about reforms. In any case, those who are screaming reforms have not given any specific suggestion for reforms. What do they really mean by reforms?
   NA: What about the claims that there is no democracy within the Awami League?
   SH: That is an utter lie. Tell me which party has more democracy than the Awami League? From the ward committee level upwards, 95 per cent of our office-holders are directly elected. We introduced transparent ballot boxes for the first time in the country during the Chhatra League elections. Even at the central committee level, the councillors directly elect members who are proposed by someone and seconded by two others. Last election, once the committee was dissolved, we left the stage and the election commission sat and asked for proposals and conducted the election. If for some posts only one name is proposed, then there is nothing we can do.
   Even within the central committee there is democracy. I had said some time ago that the next general elections should be held by June this year. But some of my colleagues later told me to change my position, so I did, reflecting the central committee’s views. I had no issues moving from my position. But I did tell them that it would have been better if the elections were held by June. Otherwise, there will be uncertainty over whether at all the polls will be held.
   So is this not democracy, when I accept a majority view? Which other party can claim such things?
   NA: The trend since the late-1970s has been that politics is increasingly being taken up by non-politicians — ex-army, ex-bureaucrats, businessmen, etc — pushing committed politicians aside. Was your party right to give in to that trend?
   SH: Ziaur Rahman once said: ‘I will make politics difficult for politicians.’ And that is precisely what he did by inducting non-politicians into the fray. But I think that everyone has the right to do politics. And if the people vote someone in, regardless of their background, then there is nothing for any of us to say. If lawyers, doctors and engineers can be elected, why not former army officers and bureaucrats?
   NA: It is claimed that politics in Bangladesh has moved from principled politics to power politics, and the Awami League has been a party to that change. What would be your defence?
   SH: Yes, politics in general has moved away from principles, and more towards power politics. That is the legacy of military interventions and military rule. But the Awami League has not been a party to that. You see, we have been in power for nine-and-a-half years out of 36. So how could we have set such an agenda? Ask the people who have been in power for the remaining twenty-five and a half years.
   NA: Certain intellectuals close to your party claim that you don’t always listen to them…
   SH: I listen to everybody. But if ten people are telling me ten things, I have to choose one when making a decision. Now someone cannot expect me to take his opinion every time.
   NA: Some of those intellectuals, especially certain leading lawyers, have suddenly disappeared from your side, at least publicly…
   SH: Before we talk about intellectuals — I had formed a 14-party alliance and then a grand alliance with many other parties. Some of those parties were led by the best lawyers of the country. My question is where are those people now? Why are they not by my side?
   NA: What is your take on the national government formula being touted around by people like Dr Kamal Hossain?
   SH: We have to decide now, do we want democracy? Do we want a multi-party system? Or do we want a one-party system? If we want a national government now, then why did we waste our time establishing a multi-party system in the last decade and a half? And why did we denounce the government of national unity formed by Bangabandhu 32 years ago? Are these people who are proposing such a system finally giving credence to Bangabandhu’s foresight? Then why was my father assassinated? Why don’t they return my father to me?
   NA: The fall of the Ershad regime in 1990 created an opportunity for democracy to be established and nurtured in this country, but today we see that attempt floundering. Do you have any regrets over your actions in that period?
   SH: First and foremost, we need an independent Election Commission that can conduct elections freely and fairly. Once the people’s will is truly reflected in election results, then automatically the accountability to the people comes in, and real democracy flourishes. And a judiciary separate from the executive branch of government.
   My government began the process for both, but unfortunately we could not finish them. But whatever has been done in both cases was done by the Awami League. In later years there has been foot-dragging on the separation of the judiciary and the positive reforms in the Election Commission brought about by Abu Hena during my time have been nullified by later governments.
   NA: Throughout the anti-Ershad movement of the 1980s, the Awami League and the BNP not only worked towards the same goal, but also worked in close liaison. Do you see a similar situation arising again?
   SH: Not with thieves again. Why should I collaborate with those who have the stink of corruption all over them? As it is we are being bracketed with these corrupt, power-hungry people. Why should we take responsibility for them? And there is an ideological issue as well. Their misdeeds and machinations have brought on this crisis for our democracy. They are not agents of a truly democratic order.