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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

EVER since a military-backed government came to power in Bangladesh, on January 11, 2007, the authority of the constitution has faced a number of challenges. The extent to which the current regime is able to identify those challenges and how it responds to them will dictate the course of democracy in Bangladesh.
   
   Background
   In an attempt to ensure that parliamentary elections are held free, fair and without undue influence from the incumbent party-political power, Bangladesh, which returned to democracy in 1991, has a system for transition of power from an elected party-political government to a non-party-political, independent, caretaker government shortly before the elections are due to be held. According to article 123(3) of the constitution, ‘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.’ The last elected regime, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, handed over power to a caretaker government on October 28, 2006. For the first time, the caretaker government was headed by the president, Iajuddin Ahmed (who was president during the BNP-led regime), as the two major political parties, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Bangladesh Awami League, were unable to reach a consensus on the appointment of a former chief justice as head of the caretaker government.
   However, the Awami League soon alleged that the Iajuddin-led administration was neither neutral nor entirely independent of the influence of the BNP-led alliance, and that it would not facilitate fair elections. Subsequently, the party announced that it would boycott the polls, scheduled to take place on January 22, 2007. The AL and BNP supporters launched a series of confrontational street protests, which became increasingly violent, prompting the army to step in, seemingly with the support of some development partners and a section of ‘civil society.’ A new ‘caretaker’ government, backed by the army, took over on January 11. Iajuddin was removed from the position of head of the caretaker government but retained as the head of state and an indefinite state of emergency was declared, suspending fundamental rights and freedoms – including the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce human rights.
   The government declared that it had multiple mandates granted to it by popular support, including the holding of parliamentary elections – not within the 90 days dictated by the constitution but after completing a fresh voters’ roll. The head of the government, former Bangladesh Bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, announced that the administration planned to prepare a new electoral roll to put the possibility of any controversy over vote rigging to rest. In addition, it announced that free and fair elections would not be possible until rampant corruption was tackled. The principle targets in the drive against corruption would be politicians and party activists suspected of illegal activities and their businessmen cohorts. The institutions that would tackle corruption such as the Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission were reorganised and retired or in-service army officers were installed to run those.
   
   The current situation
   Several months into the tenure of the Fakhruddin-led government, the Election Commission unveiled a roadmap for elections, which are supposed to take place before December 2008. There are serious obstacles in place. While launching its so-called anti-corruption drive, the government said democracy would not be possible while there was corruption within the political parties. Along with many senior staff, the top leaders of the BNP and the Awami League were accused of corruption and arrested; they remain in detention awaiting trial. Despite their detention, both remain extremely popular among the people. With a view to eliminating the influence of political leaders who were mired in a culture of corruption, the government has undertaken a series of reforms, both overt and covert, to minimise the influence of the political parties’ ruling cliques.
   With plans to create a entirely new voter list in a predominately rural country of 150 million people; arrest, try and punish corruption suspects; begin institutional reforms – including reforms in the political parties and the separation of the judiciary from the executive; improve law and order through an anti-crime drive; and hold local and national elections all before the end of 2008, the government has a long way to go in very little time.
   Trials of corruption suspects have not met international standards guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the administration has been accused of selectively choosing which corruption suspects to bring to trial based, not on the strength of evidence or severity of alleged crime, but on political expediency. This has created uncertainly among businesspeople, which, in turn, has led to a severe downturn in the economy. During the ten months or so that the government has been in power, extrajudicial killings by law enforcement agencies – common under the elected regimes – has continued; 162 people have reportedly been extra-judicially killed during the state of emergency. Furthermore, human rights defenders – including Odhikar’s acting director – have been intimidated by the intelligence agencies of the state. Torture of people detained on police remand continues.
   The print and electronic media in Bangladesh, which has a reputation of freedom and impartiality, has been under significant pressure from the state to refrain from reporting news or comments critical of the government. Journalists report being regularly ‘reminded’, usually by telephone calls, that if they publish news critical of the government they may face negative consequences. This has reportedly led to a significant level of self-censorship by the media – a restriction on the freedom of expression. During the nationwide curfew in August 2007, journalists were assaulted, beaten up and injured by the security forces. Additionally, the government declared that it had the power to ban or attach conditions on broadcasting so-called ‘provocative news,’ documentaries, talk-shows and discussions critical of the government under powers given to it by article 5 of the Emergency Powers Rules 2007.
   The government has also used the Emergency Powers Rules 2007 to quell protests by jute mill workers who have recently been made redundant and farmers who have demanded the distribution of fertiliser.
   Under pressure to deliver results, supposedly independent agencies, such as the Election Commission, have taken decisions that are seen to be based more on conforming to the plans of the regime rather than adhering strictly to the due process of the law.
   All the while, the state of emergency has outlawed public protest. Nevertheless, there have been sporadic demonstrations. In August, a seemingly small altercation between a student and a soldier on the campus of Dhaka University led to a rally and calls for an apology from the army and the government and for the army’s temporary camp to be removed from the university campus. The army quickly dismantled the camp and an apology was issued, but the students did not stop there. Rather, they began to demand the withdrawal of the state of emergency and for early elections. The demonstration spread to other university campuses throughout the country. Other groups, disaffected with the government’s policies – street hawkers and factory workers – joined the protests. The government responded with repression. Following three days of protest, it declared an indefinite, nationwide curfew. The media, already under pressure not to be critical of the authorities, was explicitly told not to broadcast ‘anti-government’ news. Television news channels were taken off the air, mobile phone signals were cut and, at the same time, it was not possible to access the internet. The authorities filed cases against 82,000 unnamed protesters. Students and university teachers were arrested and charged with breaching provisions of the Emergency Powers Rules 2007. Some remain in detention having been arrested, without warrants, from their homes in mid-night raids.
   In such an environment concerns have been growing about who is controlling the levers of power within the administration. There are increasing reports of the military intelligence agency playing a progressively more influential role in decision making and policy implementation.
   The one national institution that the military-government has not attempted to reform, an institution critical to good democracy, is the parliament – which has remained suspended since October 2006. Rather than investing time and resources to strengthen the parliament and parliamentarians, so that the representatives of the people can work towards a corruption-free society in the long term, the government has converted buildings within the parliamentary compound into sub-jails to hold high-profile, political corruption suspects.
   The role of holding the government to account during this difficult time may then have been legitimately expected to fall to journalists. However, as mentioned, the government has tightened restrictions on news and journalists work in a climate of fear – constantly walking the tightrope between professional reporting and facing the wrath of the authorities. Intimidating telephone calls from intelligence agencies especially after controversial events mean that self-censorship is rife.
   Civil society has divided into two broad camps. One group typically composed of people working in development organisations and backed by much of the international community, support this regime as they feel that, despite its faults, the military-backed government will deliver on promises to hold an election and ultimately bring good results for the country. The other group includes people from the human rights movement, academics and some journalists. They feel that the present government has gone beyond its constitutional mandate and is acting illegally – suppressing the fundamental rights of the people, pressurising the judiciary and controlling the media.
   
   Challenges
   The risk remains that the government will not be able to deliver on its promises. In tackling corruption by punishing a small number of high-profile political suspects, the work to eradicate corrupt practices in Bangladesh may prove unsustainable in the medium and long term. The government has often approached institutional improvements by replacing the head of some organisations and branding that as ‘reforms.’ At times, such as in the case of reforms in the Dhaka City Corporation, this has been imposed by sending in soldiers. Short of arresting local government chairmen and mayors suspected of corruption, the administration has not invested in improvements at the local democratic level. As changes have been enforced by a military-backed government without engaging people in debate, discussion or decision making, it seems likely that the reforms are bound to fail when the state of emergency is removed.
   Lifting the state of emergency itself will, therefore, prove to be a significant challenge to this regime. It will depend on two keys things: holding free, fair, participatory elections and ensuring that the elected government that follows will affirm the decisions of the current regime. The first of these is under threat on two fronts.
   Preparing a new voter roll is a massive task that may not be achievable within the timeframe that the government has set for itself; without the new voter list credible elections are unlikely. Secondly, if the political parties believe they are not being genuinely represented in the elections – either because their leadership is in jail or because the Election Commission has been negotiating with a party faction that does not speak for the mainstream – they may choose to boycott elections, returning the country to a position similar to the one that the army stepped in to manage in January 2007.
   As for affirming decisions taken by the government, especially decisions taken under emergency powers legislation, the ruling administration has a vested interest to ensure a group sympathetic to their actions takes over the reigns of power. The environment is, therefore, ripe for democratic rights to be further undermined.
   
   Conclusion
   Bangladesh is at a critical crossroads in its democratic journey. Top-down reforms imposed, without the participation of the people or their elected representatives, by a government, which uses fear to intimidate those it deems to be contrary to the national interest and has scant respect for the due process of law, are unlikely to deliver an improved democracy.
   The government should lift the state of emergency and begin engaging the people in the changes that will be required to move beyond a political system characterised by corruption. The Election Commission should seek permission from the Supreme Court to hold elections after ninety days under article 106 of the constitution of Bangladesh, to hold parliamentary elections for the restoration of democracy in Bangladesh.
   Adilur Rahman Khan is secretary of the human rights coalition Odhikar

PAKISTAN has been thrown into an unstable situation. A military dictator’s determination to perpetuate his rule has thrown the nation into a volatile condition. In this connection, Pakistan’s first military dictator Ayub Khan’s assertion may be relevant to refer to. During one of his meetings with the German chancellor, he said, ‘Pakistan is like Prussia [now a part of Germany]. It is an army with a country, not a country with an army.’ The German chancellor replied, ‘It is information to me.’ Ayub Khan did not mention what was the ultimate consequence of Prussia which collapsed under the weight of a large standing army. It seems General Musharraf has the same conviction as Ayub that Pakistan is an army with a country and not a country with an army. His conduct in the past nine years as the president of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a case in point.
   Last three weeks have been eventful in Pakistan. First, on October 18, when Benazir Bhutto returned to her country amid a tremendous welcome, suicide bombers attacked the crowd and 139 people lay dead and nearly 500 were wounded. The incident had shaken the people of Pakistan. But Benazir remained calm and composed. Benazir told BBC that she would not surrender to the Islamist militants. She termed the attack on her cavalcade as barbarous and cowardly. She also told the BBC that she would take part in the forthcoming general elections scheduled for January 2008. She said she had given the names of suspected attackers to General Musharraf and they were seemingly examining it.
   In the wake of the attack on Benazir, London’s influential Guardian newspaper wrote, ‘President Musharraf’s political career has come to an end. Benazir’s return to her homeland has thrown a challenge to her political adversaries. The USA has opposed any move to create obstacles to democratic processes in Pakistan.’
   ‘The bloodbath at Benazir Bhutto’s homecoming has pushed nuclear-armed Pakistan to crisis point, both politically and in its US-backed battle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Her carnage-strewn return from exile deepened the fault-lines that threaten the Islamic Republic of 160 million people, which has lurched from one existential threat to another in its six decades of independence.’
   Pakistan’s newspapers urged political parties to unite to fight religious extremism in the wake of the nation’s worst suicide bombing. The newspapers warned that the rise of extremism is the biggest challenge facing the Pakistan people as it attempts to return to democracy with general elections due in January.
   ‘It is even more evident now that moderate forces should join hands and work harder to fight against the forces of extremism,’ the widely circulated Urdu-language Jang newspaper said.
   Former prime minister and chairperson of the Pakistan People’s Party Benazir Bhutto lashed out at the madrassahs of Pakistan. She said these madrassahs have become the sanctuary of extremists. ‘We should investigate everything about these madrassahs.’ She added that if she came to power, there would be no problem for genuine madrassahs imparting real Islamic education. According to Benazir Bhutto, there are two kinds of madrassahs in Pakistan – genuine madrassahs and political madrassahs. If she goes to power, she will carry out a thorough reforms in madrassahs.
   On November 3, Musharraf declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, attacked the Supreme Court, sacked the chief justice and arrested hundreds of people including judges, lawyers, human rights advocates, political activists, and cracked down on the media.
   The News, an English-language daily of Pakistan, wrote that ‘November 3’ would go down in history as ‘black Saturday.’ Analysts say Musharraf’s attempt at self-perpetuation may lead to a complicated situation. This would lead to an escalation of extremists’ attack and Musharraf’s relation with the army may be strained.
   The US president, George W Bush, in the wake of the declaration of a state of emergency in Pakistan, urged President Musharraf to ‘restore democracy as quickly as possible.’ Bush said he had directed the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to deliver this message: ‘We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the president should remove his military uniform.’
   Meanwhile, the US has suspended defence talks with its anti-terror ally Pakistan and the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, demanded that the country return swiftly to democracy after emergency.
   Defence talks will not happen until political conditions improve. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in Beijing where he was accompanying Gates. ‘These are important bilateral meetings that require an atmosphere in which all the issues can be discussed with the full attention of all participants,’ he said.
   Rice said Washington would have to ‘review aid’ to Pakistan following the declaration of emergency rule. ‘We have a significant counterterrorism effort in Pakistan and so we have to review the whole situation,’ she added.
   The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, accused his neighbour of not doing enough against extremists who have found sanctuary in lawless tribal areas along the common border. He said the deadliest suicide bombing and the turmoil in neighbouring Pakistan have demonstrated the gravity of threat from extremism in the region.
   There are 26,000 NATO troops stationed along the Afghan-Pakistan border. So, US defence officials said the US and Pakistan would keep up joint military operators along the border with Afghanistan despite the turmoil rocking Pakistan.
   In the face of international criticism of Musharraf’s emergency, the ruling Muslim League’s chairman said, ‘I am confident that within two to three weeks state of emergency will be lifted, President Musharraf is conscious of the consequence of long-term emergency rule.’
   On November 10, Pakistan’s attorney general said ‘the state of emergency is likely to be lifted in a month.’
   Meanwhile, Musharraf declared that elections would be held by February 15. The declaration came hours after Bush had telephoned Musharraf to urge him to repeal emergency rule, hold polls that were due in January and quit as army chief of the nuclear-armed Islamic republic.
   On November 2, before her rally in Rawalpindi Benazir, was interned in her residence at Islamabad. She was served a three-day detention order. There was strong reaction against Musharraf’s action in Washington and he was forced to release Benazir from her detention late at night. The PPP leaders claimed that 5,000 of the party’s activists had been taken into custody.
   Earlier, Benazir speaking with a news agency by telephone from inside her bullet-proof car declared. ‘I am not afraid of these tactics. My struggle is for the people of Pakistan, for their rights and for an end to dictatorship.’
   After General Musharraf seized power in 1999 overthrowing the democratic government of Nawaz Sharif, the US vigorously condemned it. Pakistan was one of the three countries to recognise the Taliban regime in Pakistan. After 9/11, the situation underwent a sea change. Pakistan became a non-NATO ally of the US in its war against terrorism. There was a great shift in Pakistan’s foreign and defence policies. Before that Mosharraf was despised as a ‘bad dictator’ by Washington.
   In his autobiography, ‘In the line of fire,’ Musharraf recalled: on September 12, 2001, ‘I was chairing an important meeting at the Governor’s House when my military secretary told me that the US Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting and take the call. Powell was quite candid: “You are either with us or against us.” I took them as a blatant ultimatum. However, contrary to some published reports, that conversation did not get into specifics. I told him that we are with the United States against terrorism, having suffered from it for years, and would fight along with his country, against it. We did not negotiate anything. I had time to think through exactly what might happen next.
   ‘When I was back in Islamabad the next day, our director-general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. In what has to be the most un-diplomatic statement ever made Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told me not only that “we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.” This was a shockingly barefaced threat, but it was obvious that the United States had decided to hit back, and hit back hard.’
   In Pakistan, there is a state within a state and it is the Inter Services Intelligence. They are the strong supporters of the Islamist extremists. This is the reason why Pakistan could not be militants-free. Pakistan’s military is thoroughly corrupt. Currently, an overwhelming majority of people in Pakistan are anti-military, a survey shows. Benazir Bhutto was asked how she would handle the military when they were involved in defence services to business deals, and when they were also patronising extremism, fundamentalism and terrorism, she could not give a convincing answer.
   If a democratic government under the Pakistan People’s Party is installed, the armed forces will have to go back to the barracks. The armed forces will be used only in static duties and guarding the frontier of the country.
   The main ideology of Pakistan’s armed forces seems to be using Islam as a business. On the other hand, America is changing its strategy. They have realised that under army leadership, Pakistan cannot be governed. Nobody in the world supports General Musharraf. But Benazir or Musharraf cannot take any actions against the ISI, which is known around the world as a legal terrorist organisation. Military rule brings disaster to the nation and its population. The army officials give a damn to rules or legal paraphernalia. They only look after their own interest and the interest of their supporters. Frequent bouts of army rule in the 60 years of its independence have compounded the situation in Pakistan, which is now on the brink of being dubbed as a ‘rogue state’ or a ‘failed state.’
   Post-script: Musharraf said on November 11 that the general elections would be held by January 9. He said the election commission would fix an exact date for the vote and that the parliament would be dissolved on November 15 and the country would be run by a caretaker government.

The following was written by a Karachi-based lawyer, Omar K. Throughout his legal career he has been active in social causes, including prisoner’s rights and causes and the issue of forced evictions carried out by the state. Omar’s friends are now incredibly worried for his safety as he continues to be outspoken and active in resisting the draconian measures passed to put down the judiciary and the lawyers in Pakistan. The following is his account of living as a lawyer under this increasingly brutal emergency
–– Editor, Counterpunch
   On November 5, 2007, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, heavily armed police, intelligence and other law enforcement agencies laid siege on the courts of Pakistan. As usual, and like most lawyers, I arrived at 8-15 at the High Court of Sindh. I was greeted at the gate by a policeman brandishing his weapon at me and asking me why I had come to court. I told him I was a lawyer upon which he asked me to show my identity. I complied. Hurling abuses at me he ‘advised’ that I should return if I did not want to get a beating and go to jail. I looked at the usual guard of the court premises but his refusal to meet my eye convinced me that there was nothing he could do. I did not return and instead entered the court premises. I felt that if I returned, I will have betrayed my own principles of standing for justice and fair play. I sensed that there would be aggression from the police but why would they want to hurt a non-political, non-active and gentle person who did not believe in violence. A short while later the fallacy of my beliefs was to be exposed.
   While I was standing talking to my colleagues, we saw the police go wild at the orders of a superior officer. In riot gears, brandishing weapons and sticks, about a 100 policemen attacked us. Without an iota of exaggeration, these heavily armed policemen attacked unarmed and peaceful lawyers and seemed intensely happy at doing so. We all ran. Some of us who were not as nimble on their feet as others were caught by the police and beaten mercilessly. We were then brutally forced and locked in police vans which are used to transport convicted prisoners. Every one was stunned at this show of brute force but it did not end. The mayhem inside the court premises and court buildings went on. Any person, who remotely resembled a lawyer was caught, beaten and dragged into police vans. A handful of lawyers had to lock themselves up in the Bar Room to avoid a beating. They remained locked in the Bar Room for many hours before the police finally decided to leave after demolishing our self-respect and dignity.
   Those of us who were arrested were taken to various police stations and put into lock-ups. At midnight, we were told that we were being shifted to jail. We could not get bail as our fundamental rights were suspended. 60 lawyers were put into a police van 10 feet by 4 feet wide and 5 feet in height. We were squashed liked sardines. When the van reached the jail, we were told that we could not get off the van until orders of our detention were received by the jail authorities. Our older colleagues started to suffocate, some fainted while others started to panic because of claustrophobia. The police ignored our screams and refused to open the van doors. Finally, after 3 hours of remaining in the van we were let out and taken to mosquito-infested barracks where the food given to us smelled like sewerage water.
   A week has passed since Musharaff trampled our dignity. Over a 100 of my colleagues are still being held in jail still. Condemned unheard. No remedy available. Their only sin––they are from the legal profession.
   Every day, lawyers are being arrested. Any body who questions the emergency is quickly arrested and put into jail. Those who do not question the emergency are also in danger.
   In a move to justify his dictatorial madness, Musharraf in his state of union address had compared his action to that of Abraham Lincoln. He quoted a speech by Lincoln in which Lincoln talked about violating the constitution. Any student of American history would laugh at the comparison. I need not say anything more. The comparison only reflected what an ignorant person the dictator is. Three journalists of the Daily Telegraph were told to leave Pakistan yesterday for using ‘foul and abusive language against the Pakistan leadership’. As I write this article, I am sure that I too will be charged for treason. I do not care. I’d rather be tortured to death by Musharraf and his men than bow down before him. This is a sentiment that is shared by the entire legal community barring a few spineless men and others whose bank accounts are beginning to swell.
   What further disappoints us is the role played by the mainstream political parties and countries like the United States who are always harping about democracy. Sitting on the fence waiting to see which way the movement initiated by the lawyers goes. Fazlur Rehman, Nawaz Sharif, the Chaudries, Altaf Hussain and the biggest criminal of all––Mrs Zardari [Benazir Bhutto]––all sitting waiting to see what advantages they can gain from supporting Musharraf. These people have no dignity so they don’t have much to lose. They have no courage to stand up to the dictator. They only want to ride the surf. Same is the case with Bush. I was stunned that Bush is only ‘mildly disappointed’ by Musharraf’s emergency rule. Mr. Bush, you were already one of the most hated characters in Pakistan –– the people now despise you.
   Let us see what lies in ahead for the judiciary.
   Counterpunch, November 12, 2007.

BTTB broadband

It is about time the BTTB started providing broadband lines to its subscribers. The BTTB has the infrastructure and network to provide broadband services in all metropolitan cities of the country. In developed countries, telephone companies are providing high-tech services like broadband to the subscribers and have enhanced their source of revenue. I wonder why the BTTB is lagging behind. Is it because they are not aware of broadband service or lack of interest or is it due to bureaucratic tangles?
   Further, I may suggest that since cellphone companies are providing ISD service to its subscribers, the BTTB should also provide ISD service through all digital phones to enhance its revenue.
   Ziauddin Ahmed
   Dhaka

The hapless guardians of the students of the English-medium schools have to bear the VAT imposed on them. Now as there is a rule to regulate the English-medium schools, the school authorities may first charge the guardians something like ‘regulation fee’ and think about the regulations later.
   Saif
   Dhaka

I am really sad at the death of Norman Mailer. But what is scary is the number of people who claim never to have heard of Norman Mailer. Do people live their lives with their heads buried in the sand? Love him or hate him but please do not be ignorant of a writer of his stature.
   Sabrina
   On e-mail

Farmers have been besieging the offices of UNO, DC or agro-offices. But the agriculture ministry and industry ministry are repeatedly claiming that there is no shortage of fertiliser.
   This appears to be a big joke and travesty of truth or there might be big gap in understanding what actually the situation is. During every harvesting season, acute shortage of urea, pesticides, etc. occur. When farmers are agitated, they are arrested and even shot at; such an incident actually took place in the ‘90s.
   The same situation should not repeat every year. The distribution system should be carefully examined and smuggling should be controlled.
   Kumar Prithwiraj Nath
   Toronto, Canada

Next on Quick Comments

a. Stripping MPs of local govt role proposed (New Age, November 13) b. Inter-ministerial body to study recommendations to be submitted today (New Age, November 13) c. Benazir to lead protest march despite ban (New Age, November 13) d. Ordinance soon to make all-purpose nat’l ID cards mandatory (New Age, November 13) e. Dhaka eyes Myanmar gas for fertiliser factories (New Age, November 13)