Editorial
Election Commission’s welcome
change of stance
THE chief election commissioner, ATM Shamsul Huda, on May 14 announced that the Election Commission would prepare the voters’ roll for general elections to the ninth parliament by setting up registration camps which eligible voters would have to visit rather than by going door-to-door to register voters. We pointed out through an editorial on May 16 that this decision was a violation of the legal requirement on the commission to go door-to-door to prepare the voters’ roll. We, therefore, welcome the latest decision of the commission announced on May 23 that it will send enumerators door-to-door to distribute voters’ registration forms and to help people to fill them out. Also, although the voters will still have to go to the registration camps to have their photographs and fingerprints taken, the decision to go to the houses of those with physical disabilities and the ailing for their photographs and fingerprints deserves praise. These decisions by the commission, which are significant departures from its earlier stance, have proved that it is willing to consider and in certain cases accommodate the demands of the electorate.
We pointed out earlier that the decision to prepare the voters’ roll through the setting up of registration camps would result in a large number of eligible voters being left out of the roll, as many people would not be able to visit the camps due to various physical, economic and social constraints. We also pointed out that the commission would have great difficulty in ascertaining that the people that it was registering through the camps in a particular area actually resided in that area. This would once again leave room for irregularities to take place in the registration process and lead to a less than credible electoral roll. Any election based on a voters’ list which left out large numbers of eligible voters and which contained significant errors would neither be representative, credible or acceptable, we argued.
The decision of the commission to go door-to-door will, therefore, not only be generally more convenient for the electorate, it will also be a far more effective way of preparing a voters’ roll which is inclusive. The pilot project that will be undertaken by the commission in Gazipur district from June 10 will be critical in identifying potential problems and hitches, and will provide an opportunity for the commission to design an effective and foolproof project. The flexibility shown by the commission, in moving away from its earlier stance to one which we feel will serve the interests of the electorate better, gives us hope that the commission will be open to further improvements to its voters’ roll preparation method, especially to do it in a manner which will be most convenient for the electorate and within the shortest possible time.
Still not rehabilitated
One of the first few things that the military-backed interim government did on its assumption of office was initiate a drive to pull down unauthorised structures on government land and remove makeshift shops from roadsides and footpaths in the capital as elsewhere in the country. The drive in the capital left about 60,000 people homeless as the slums they used to call home were razed. Also, tens of thousands of people lost whatever little means of livelihood they had had. In other words, the immediate outcome of the drive was that a huge number of the marginalised people in society were made either homeless or jobless or both. Since then, the government has initiated a step to rehabilitate the hawkers who lost their source of livelihood in the drive; however, the lot of the 60,000-or-so evictees has remained as uncertain as it was after the drive.
It may be given in a state of emergency that a citizen’s democratic rights to speech, thoughts or conscience, association, etc remains suspended — and some advisers to the interim government have frequently sought to remind us of that; however, what the state of emergency does not preclude is the state’s constitutional obligations to protect and promote certain rights of its citizens, i.e. right to food, shelter, healthcare, education and security. The drive has deprived a sizeable section of society of shelter and livelihood, and by extension hampered their security. The post-drive deliberations of the government have made it evident that it did not really think about the consequence of the wholesale demolition and eviction.
Although the government later decided to rehabilitate the evictees it has not yet progressed much on that track, while many of those rendered homeless are compelled to spend their days and nights out in the open. Apparently there has been a decision to lease some land to a network of non-governmental organisations that would arrange for shelters for a portion of the evictees but the advisory council is yet to finalise the move and hence the project is in limbo of sorts.
Demolishing slums to recover government lands and evicting thousands defying a court ban against such a move, on the one hand, and then agreeing to lease some government land for the rehabilitation later, on the other, borders on the absurd. It would have been a far better plan of action if the land was leased first with arrangement for rehabilitation of the people to be evicted from the demolished slums. However, since the government lacked the foresight, or wisdom, to take up the more sensible plan of action, the least it could have done was to make necessary arrangements in the shortest possible time. But it appears from the report that the entire matter has become more of a bureaucratic entanglement while thousands are left to suffer for months.
The challenge was inevitable but the opportunity is waiting to be seized
Democracy demands politics and parties and there are no viable or long-term substitutes to political parties and processes including elections to representative governments; but more. Elections are important but not sufficient precondition for democratic politics and institutions. If democracy and politics within democracy are for and by the people, the first and foremost duty of parliamentary democracy is to deliver public good with accountability, writes Dr Zakir Husain
SHEIKH Hasina laments, in her words, the prevailing ‘suffocating situation’ in the country. That may well be the case. But suffocating for whom? If the people feel suffocated they are not screaming for help or gasping in distress, at least not yet. On the other hand, if the politicians feel suffocated that is understandable.
Oxford Reference Dictionary defines ‘suffocating’ as inability to breathe; die or kill from lack of air.
Similarly Asphyxia is a condition caused by lack of oxygen — essential for life. These are conditions unfavourable to life.
Is there a disconnect between politicians and the people? Even if there is, let us all hope it is a temporary and abnormal state of politics.
‘Fickle’ or ‘foolish’ public opinion might be seen by some political observers, but the people of Bangladesh remain deeply involved and interested in political matters, even when they lose direct control over political process and outcome, as is often the case.
But if political leaders find the present situation unbearably suffocating, they have only themselves to blame. The emergency on January 11 came as the culmination of a long process of political mismanagement leading to bankruptcy.
Political parties, the two major ones in particular, nurtured a culture of aggrandisement and arrogance, tolerated a pervasive corruption, encouraged a partisan civil service, and preferred confrontation and violence rather than moderation and dialogue in political discourse.
The spirit and substance of good democratic politics were lost in a naked struggle for power; revenge and settling of scores consumed disproportionate effort and energy.
Political agitation by opposition is legitimate in democracy. Unfortunately though, agitation often used outdated and inappropriate methods that had been better suited to politics of the long-past colonial times. Neither nationwide strikes, arson and even mass violence, nor violent suppression of opposition movement can be compatible with a representative democracy. Only an armed revolution overturns the institutions of democracy. When political agitation in the name of democracy begins to deny citizens their civic rights, livelihood and security of life, that must be something very perverse.
For good part of past fifteen years, the two ‘queens’ surrounded by docile or fearful subordinates and cadres of loyal followers, reigned in majesty. An excellent thing for party solidarity but something that retarded growth (and challenge) of alternate leadership — something essential to the renewal and rejuvenation of political leadership in a democracy.
Leadership today, unlike in the past, demands more than loyalty even to fixed ideology let alone individuals however endowed or talented, which is not necessarily the case always. Leadership in today’s knowledge-based world affairs demands evidence-based knowledge, skills and aptitudes in economic and social development as in international alliances based on pragmatism. Political leadership need not be technically all knowing but need to create conditions that nurture science and technology supportive of political and social ideology. The skills that had been once useful in a colonial time are inadequate or inappropriate in post-colonial democracies.
The emergency and the interim Government are the direct result of a near catastrophic condition brought about by the events around proposed general elections to the ninth parliament. A detailed chronicle is neither appropriate nor necessary for it is no secret to anyone — least of all to the party members themselves. Hasina even congratulated herself on having created conditions for the caretaker Fakhruddin government coming into being.
Actions have consequences. Political actions too have poetical consequences. That is natural law and is inevitable. Lamenting the consequences after committing actions is of no avail. What is useful is learning lessons for future.
The past fifteen years of relatively free run by political parties gave the country many good developments (infrastructure, communications, education, health, industry and commerce, etc) but also a free run of corruption, reward for political partisanship and not for merit. Above all, it produced a sort of cult worship and concentration of power that crippled evolution of democratic leadership itself.
The present emergency is a direct consequence of politics allowed to drift and degenerate to an extent that the body politic went into a sate of coma; an allusion to a patient with stroke lying in an intensive care unit would not be too far.
If the people feel suffocated that is something brought upon them by a political bankruptcy not of their choice or
making.
True, the suspension of fundamental rights is neither normal nor welcome. But suspension of politics as usual suffocates more the entrenched politicians rather than the ordinary citizens who were denied civil rights during the recent
turmoil leading up to the emergency promulgated on January 11.
The public does not wish to return to a state of anarchy but has the right to enjoy basic rights. The sooner the political culture is unlearnt the better. Better still, the advent of fresh young and modern political leadership to steer the political process in a new direction and nurture a culture more tolerant and civil; more attuned to modern day public service. No one has the ordained right to rule the roost including inside the political parties even in the name of democracy within which it rarely is. Democracy demands politics and parties and there are no viable or long-term substitutes to political parties and processes including elections to representative governments; but more. Elections are important but not sufficient precondition for democratic politics and institutions. If democracy and politics within democracy are for and by the people, the first and foremost duty of parliamentary democracy is to deliver public good with accountability. Independent judiciary, competent civil service, a national armed forces, and free press are other prerequisites.
The present caretaker/interim government is tasked with setting in process the essential reforms in politics and the
institutions of state governance, creating an institution and conditions for a reasonably free and credible elections to the ninth parliament, and possibly thereafter.
Reforms anywhere at any time are an ongoing process; genuine reforms respond to the dynamics of past deeds and present needs. Reforms are by definition never finite or final. The present government realises that too well and is apparently determined to do its best and most within its limitation of time and capacities.
Governments in democracy like ours come and go. It is not for any single government or parliament to compete the reforms for all times ahead. And elected governments do change as a result of a party winning or losing the elections. That too is the essence of democratic politics. What however remain in place through successive political regimes are those state institutions like judiciary, civil service, defence forces, and local governance through representatives locally elected.
In the above sense of democratic evolution in the country, the emergency and the government coming to power through that, is an interregnum — one that deserves to be taken positively and given the leave to fulfil its mandate best carried out through clear plan of action and a timeline, in accordance with its prime task to usher in a new parliament and representative government of, by, and for the people. Political parties and office holders within parties may feel inconvenienced or suffocated or even asphyxiated in extreme cases. Hopefully, such instances will be rare exceptions and remedied. But the temporary inconvenience should prompt the parties to introspect, and change where change will enhance or renew their capacity to deliver good governance and quality of life to the electorate. Democracy or elections are not an end by itself; those are means to an end which is people’s right to exercise their sovereignty through representatives elected by them, not for electing representatives to rule and reign for profit or plunder. If people see that prospect in the near future, the price of suspended fundamental rights for now will be accepted.
LETTER FROM DELHI
Russian pride, EU prejudice
S Nihal Singh
The ultimate solution to seeking a working equation with Russia will revolve round the big boys (and a girl) of the EU getting together to evolve a European solution. Important as the US’ attitude to Europe is, given the economic, trade, political and security relations, the EU’s salvation can only come from a European approach to Moscow. And Brussels will have to evolve a formula to keep the new Europeans’ excess zeal in insulting Moscow under check even while offering them the considerable benefits of membership.
BEHIND the failure of the recent European Union summit with Russia in the resort town of Samara lies the dramatic change in the West’s interactions with Moscow, underlined as much by the triumphalist American neoconservative creed, as by Russia’s new empowerment through oil and gas, and Europe’s own search for seeking an equilibrium with its giant eastern neighbour. The EU’s new members have lighted a match in this incendiary mix in a relationship with Russia that can only be described as a
classic instance of pride and prejudice.
Both Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and the EU Commission president José Manuel Barroso took care to express ‘solidarity’ with the new members’ disputes with Moscow. If the older and more important members of the EU are not careful, the tail will wag the dog. These members, it seems, are keener to humiliate Russia in any manner they can and woo the United States than to coexist with post-Soviet Russia; Moscow, for its part, is suffering from the hangover of its imperial past.
To give it credit, the George W Bush administration is clear about its approach to Russia. It wants to stymie and contain Russia in every way, including the expansion of NATO to its very borders. It is now planning to install a missile shield in Russia’s backyard, in Poland and the Czech Republic, as the icing on the cake. But the EU, being Russia’s neighbour, cannot take such a lofty, and foolish, approach, despite Polish and Czech zeal. If any summit was foredoomed to failure, it was the Samara one. Poland had already stalled the main agenda item — talks on a new partnership agreement to replace the outdated agreement that expires at the end of the year — by exercising its veto because of Russia’s ban on the import of Polish meat. Estonia had seen days of rioting by ethnic Russians over the relocation of a World War II statue of a Russian soldier redolent of heroic and shameful memories, depending on the side one backed. And Estonians gave dark hints about Russian culpability in crippling one million government and corporate sites of their country in alleged cyber warfare. Lithuania was sore because Moscow had turned off oil supplies to a venture sold
to a Polish company in preference to a Russian one.
Chancellor Merkel had her own agenda concerning energy security, human rights and climate change, but though these issues were broached, the summit was enveloped in the pall of the crisis hanging over Samara. The enlarged EU had given a new and different complexion to dealing with Moscow, and Barroso’s ostentatious declaration that one member’s problems were the problems of all members was the last nail in the coffin of the Samara summit.
The EU has been seeking ways to coexist with Russia ever since the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. It spread out the welcome mat for the former communist nations, including the Baltic states. There were dangers involved in the US spreading its wings in Russia’s ‘near-abroad’ and EU members themselves kept on wooing nations in the post-Soviet space. Alarm bells started ringing in Moscow with the western-inspired ‘colour revolutions’ on its periphery, in Georgia and the Ukraine. The most galling aspect of the ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine for Moscow was that the two main mediators were the presidents of Poland and Lithuania. It was like rubbing the Russian nose in the dirt.
The EU has tried to find a less offensive manner of dealing with Russia in calmer times; indeed, Vladimir Putin’s interactions with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder on opposition to the Iraq war were chummy and exemplary. As far back as the May 2003 St Petersburg summit, the two sides had laid down a vista of cooperation in ‘four common spaces’ after attempts at including Russia in a ‘neighbourhood policy’ together with Mediterranean countries was given up as being impractical. These ranged far and wide from economic space to freedom and security and justice and research. The spaces remained largely
virgin territory because the existing
partnership agreement was too weak an instrument to carry out the plan.
Russia supplies the EU with one quarter of its oil and two-fifth of its gas supplies. The scramble for energy resources was started by the US, which successfully inspired a pipeline that would bring Central Asian supplies by bypassing Russia. Russia and Germany, the latter under Schroeder, aced the Americans by initiating a direct pipeline under the Baltic Sea bypassing Poland and Georgia, much to the discomfiture of the latter. And now President Putin has aced the lot by signing agreements with Central Asian states to build and reinforce new gas pipelines to Russia. What particularly riles Moscow is that the West is happy hunting for projects in the post-Soviet space but cries foul if Russia seeks to buttress its interests in the “near-abroad.”
Chancellor Merkel has declared, ‘We are interested in a close strategic partnership with Russia.’ The problem is in giving shape and substance to it. There is a new evolving power equation in the old European states, with President Nicolas Sarkozy having taken office in France, Gordon Brown to assume office in Britain shortly and Merkel herself constrained by her uneasy partnership with Social Democrats. In all probably, Sarkozy’s Gaullist heritage will trump his pro-American leanings and Merkel’s common sense will see the pitfalls of making an enemy of Russia. Brown’s Euro-sceptic
reputation precedes his advent at No 10 but he may yet surprise the world.
The ultimate solution to seeking a working equation with Russia will revolve round the big boys (and a girl) of the EU getting together to evolve a European solution. Important as the US’ attitude to Europe is, given the economic, trade, political and security relations, the EU’s salvation can only come from a European approach to Moscow. And Brussels will have to evolve a formula to keep the new Europeans’ excess zeal in insulting Moscow under check
even while offering them the considerable benefits of membership.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
