Editorial
More extrajudicial killings
Call it ‘encounter’, ‘shootout’ or ‘crossfire’, the fact of the matter is that the men of law continue to kill suspected criminals unlawfully. In the latest incident of extrajudicial killings, the police gunned down six suspected robbers at a village in Barisal early Friday. According to the police, a band of armed robbers swooped on a house and but had to retreat as people in the area came out in throngs to help the distressed family, and took refuge in a hideout. The police later raided the hideout and detained a suspected robber. As they were taking the detainee to the local police station, his associates attacked the police. Six of them were killed in the subsequent shootout. Needless to say, the police account of the incident has an uncanny familiarity about it. We have heard of and read about similar statements on similar incidents so many times before.
Such routine accounts betray what seems to be a disdainful indifference of the law enforcers to the very concept of rule of law, which ordains that even the vilest of criminals has the right to defend himself or herself in the court of law against the charges brought against him or her. The law enforcers seem convinced that their accountability ends at issuing such routine statements, which is frightful, to say the least. When the protectors of law show such an alarming inclination to vigilante justice, we cannot but be worried.
Regrettably, the authorities do not seem to have any worries about such trigger-happy law enforcers. While the number of extrajudicial killings keeps climbing — it has topped 800 a long time back and is fast approaching the 1,000 mark, not once have the relevant law-enforcement agencies dug deep into an episode of ‘encounter’, ‘shootout’ or ‘crossfire’ to find out what actually transpired. Hardly has any law enforcer been investigated for possible excesses, let alone indicted and punished.
We renew our call to the government to take effective steps to rein in the trigger-happy law enforcers. Let there be an effective and transparent inquiry into Friday’s shootout in Barisal to find out whether it was a case of self-defence as the police claim or yet another case of vigilante justice.
The Blair legacy
THE world was quite prepared for the announcement of Tony Blair’s resignation. After the Labour victory in the last British election, in which the party’s margin of votes had been slashed, it was known that Blair would not complete his third term as prime minister and it was also commonly presumed that the chancellor of exchequers, Gordon Brown, regarded as a financial wizard, would in the mid-course take over. Blair was in fact bidding a long goodbye. On Thursday came the announcement that he would actually step down on June 27. He resigns both as premier and party chief but will retain his membership of parliament (unless he accepts a highly lucrative international job). In an emotional 17-minute speech at his constituency in Sedgfield he admitted that he made decisions which proved unpopular and deeply controversial and even apologised ‘for the times I have fallen short’ but insisted that he believed it was the right thing to do.
Ten years ago, on May 10, 1997, supporters sang ‘Things can only get better’. Their expectations ran high. Things did get better. In a long ten-year inning Blair’s domestic score was indeed high. He ended the long Conservative rule, gave leadership to the demoralised Labour Party and put Britain on a sound economic footing. Unemployment was low, the pound sterling appreciated and the economy thrived. Viewed in terms of domestic prosperity Blair has been one of the most successful prime ministers Britain has ever had. Another feather on his crown is his success in establishing peace in Northern Ireland.
Yet the Blair legacy is a very unhappy one for Britain. He leaves a nation divided. People will remember him more as a minion of a foreign power than as a good steward of domestic affairs. No matter a leader is efficient or not, he has to respect public opinion. The people of Britain will not forgive him for involving their country in a war which all but few opposed. And, further, this was a war which was based on a lie, and the prime minister perhaps knew it was a lie. A conscientious scientist, David Kelly, committed suicide, unable to bear the burden of a mendacity which was leading to deaths of his compatriots and thousands of others in the battlefields of Iraq. And Blair not only lent support to Bush’s Iraq war, but he also went the whole hog in playing second fiddle to Bush, even extending his support to the latter’s patronage of Israel’s war against Hezbollah and keeping ambiguous on whether he would still militarily go with Bush if the US were to attack Iran. This earned him the sobriquet of ‘Bush puddle’. If he was taking wrong decisions there was enough time to correct them, especially when a large segment of his own party colleagues were opposing his decisions. At times it looked as though the British people meant nothing to him.
It is unfortunate that in this globalisation-driven world even capable leaders shun the path of statesmanship and opt for war despite the absence of a visible compulsion. Blair’s sinking popularity has also shown that it is not true that people only value their own prosperity and disregard idealistic matters like those of world peace.
Sarkozy enters the Palais d’Elysee
This time some observers of the French political scene thought that there might be a change in the high office of the president of France as because Jacques Chirac was elected twice as president. And therefore there would be a change from the right to the left. But it hasn’t happened,
writes, Professor M Maniruzzaman Miah
After the second round run-off voting on May 6, the conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy came out victorious by a margin of seven per cent of the total votes cast defeating his rival Segolene Royal of the Socialist Party for the presidency of France. France is a major player not only in European politics but also in the international political arena. Naturally, there was considerable interest in the presidential election in France in many countries all over the world. More so, because the election had several characteristics which distinguish it from other elections in the past.
In the first place, both the candidates Nicolas Sarkozy, son of a Hungarian father who migrated to France after the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1944, and Segolene Royal represent a new generation of French politicians. Secondly, this time there was a woman candidate seriously vying for the presidency of France. And then the voter turnout of 85 per cent in the first round, was the highest since 1965.
In any case Nicolas Sarkozy finally won decisively, having bagged 53 per cent of the votes cast while the Socialist Royal was way behind with 46 per cent. It would be interesting to look over a little bit as to what the electoral issues were and how did the French voters responded to those.
Many issues that concern the French people were debated and discussed by the candidates, their supporters and the media. The range is fairly wide from economic matters like unemployment, tax cut and working hours to social concerns related to education, environment and the like. No less important was the candidates’ views on international affairs like European integration, American global dominance, China, Israel and the like.
Unemployment has been a pain in the neck of all French governments for quite sometime, now at a high rate of l0 per cent. Along with this were issues like immigration, working hour and labour welfare, one impinging on the other. Immigration, particularly the question of how to deal with ‘illegal’ immigrants divides the conservatives and the socialists widely. Sarkozy, as home minister, dealt severely with riots in 2005 in the suburbs of Paris fomented by unemployed immigrant youth and has proposed still harsher measures if elected to the presidency. The Socialist candidate proposed to send the unruly youth to centres under military discipline.
The conservatives have been criticising the 35-hour weekly working hours on the ground that they have to work longer to face up to the challenges of the 21st century in a globalised world. Otherwise, France will lag behind other industrially developed country much to the detriment of her national interest. Sarkozy proposed to repeal the 35-hour working week earlier fixed by Lionel Jospin’s socialist government. Royal promised a respectable minimum wage and also a substantial amount of living allowance if someone loses a job. She also pledged that no youth will remain without a job or training for more than six months. On the issue of energy and environment, the two hopefuls for the presidency had divergent views, Royal proposing to do away with dependency on nuclear energy and replacing that by renewable energy by at least 20 per cent within 2020 while Sarkozy would develop further nuclear technology and would also at the same time increase tax on pollution.
A large number of such issues were debated during the months preceding the election. These may not be of much interest to Bangladeshi people. Interestingly, though both the candidates were for market economy, their approaches sometimes differed. And both are known for their pro-US stance.
A look at the voting figures suggests that the richer section of the people both in the big urban centres and also in the provinces along with the followers of the Catholic church who are known for their conservative attitude towards society and social processes have supported Sarkozy while the others, particularly those living in suburbs of big cities and the immigrants, preferred Royal.
This time some observers of the French political scene thought that there might be a change in the high office of the president of France as because Jacques Chirac was elected twice as president. And therefore there would be a change from the right to the left. But it hasn’t happened. One of his party men has succeeded him. Both the candidates represent the post-World War II generation, being of the same age, Royal 53, while Sarkozy 52. Both had a comparable academic background. Sarkozy, of course, had more administrative experience as minister than his opponent. Moreover, a few events went against the Socialist candidate. Not all her party stalwarts threw their weight behind her.
The French president under the Fifth Republic wields enormous power and authority. Did the French people massively vote for Sarkozy because he, as home minister, gave enough evidence of his mettle? Maybe. According to some observers, the Socialist candidate spoiled whatever chances she had at the televised debate, held prior to the run-off vote. During the debate, while Sarkozy was calm and composed and replied to every question directly, his rival could not keep her cool. Her feminine grace was practically of no avail to her. She sealed all her chances of narrowing the gap between her and her rival candidate. So she has to wait for another five years if at all she intends to run for the second time. By that time, of course, a lot of water will have flowed down the Seine.
Professor M Maniruzzaman Miah is a former vice-chancellor of Dhaka University. He also served as an ambassador and a member
of the Anti-Corruption Commission
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
