ANALYSIS
Manifesto revelations: focus
on the differences
We have to live with the fact that in Bangladeshi politics, we do not yet have a culture of holding the winning party’s feet to the fire based on their election promises, writes Mridul Chowdhury
If their election manifestos are anything to go by, the major political parties, it seems, are ready to promising everything under the sun as long as such promises ensure their passage to power. Some of the manifestos are specific with quantifiable targets and short-term strategies while others are laden with broad goals and generalised pledges. There seem to be broadly three prominent categories of thought with the manifestos of the two major parties — the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Bangladesh Awami League.
Some people seem happy that the Awami League, in its manifesto, has specified ‘numbers’ for many of their goals such as GDP growth and poverty reduction, arguing that it shows vision and thinking. Curiously, the numbers related to their poverty reduction targets are multiples of 5. ‘By 2013,’ the AL manifesto says, ‘poverty level and proportion of ultra-poor will be brought down to 25% and 15% respectively. The number of poor people will be reduced from 65 to 45 million.’ One could very well question whether these figures are products of an ‘intellectual’ conversation or some actual economic analysis.
Some others are dubbing BNP’s manifesto as relatively ill-conceived, since there is little mention of short-term strategies and few mentions of ‘numbers’.
Yet, for a lot of others, there is really no substantial difference between the two and it does not really matter what they say anyway because there seems to be absolutely no analysis of where the funding for realising these promises will come from – so it is like a hollow competition of who can promise more and present their ‘offerings’ more intelligently, which AL seems to have trumped the others on.
However, if one gets into the details of which issues the parties are placing their emphasis on in their respective manifestoes, or more interestingly, which issues they are carefully avoiding, it does reveal important information about the parties or can potentially raise/ flag questions in a voter’s mind.
Let’s focus on the curious differences in the manifestos of the four major parties – AL, BNP, Jamaat and Jatiya Party.
Strategies for reducing prices
This is possibly the biggest factor affecting citizens in the short-term and all parties have promised the usual – increase production, provide food subsidies, revise import policies etc.
However, AL has gone a step
further by explicitly mentioning elimination of ‘syndicates’, which are no doubt an important piece
of the uncontrollable price hike
mystery, but one that is largely ‘intangible’.
AL’s bluntness in mentioning them in the manifesto and the others’ avoidance of the issue does raise a point to be noted.
Whether the AL will actually do anything about this, if voted to power, is a different matter but AL does promise the creation of a consumer protection agency, which others do not.
Strengthening parliamentary democracy
Democracy is much more than a free and fair election – a functional parliament is at least just as important. Judging from the manifestos, only BNP seems to realise that well enough.
BNP is more assertive than the others about strengthening parliamentary democracy by proposing that both Speaker and Deputy Speaker have to resign from their party posts and cut all ties with their respective parties; and that the Deputy Speaker will be selected from the opposition party. AL does not address the issue except vague promise of effective Parliament without mentioning any specifics. JP and Jamaat also do not mention anything beyond the usual.
Fighting corruption
Corruption has been one of the biggest deterrents of our national growth – almost all Bangladeshis know that in principle.
However, for a vast majority of our population, when it comes to coming to terms with the fact that a lot of our ‘jono-neta’ and ‘jono-netri’ are directly responsible for the corruption, we either go into a state of disbelief, denial, amnesia or just plain old virtue of forgiveness.
Whether this is an exclusively Bangladeshi trait or not is debatable – but this is a fact that we have to
live with (until our collective psyche makes a dramatic shift) and more importantly, take appropriate policies for.
From an institutional perspective, we have two bodies that we generally turn to for fighting corruption – the Anti-Corruption Commission (through prosecuting corrupt people) and the Election Commission (through ensuring that those convicted cannot run for elections).
Despite the importance of the judiciary on this issue, none of the party manifestos talk about judiciary independence and strengthening in the same breath as fighting corruption. There is a separate section for that, with the usual rhetoric.
Also, none of the manifestos mention explicitly about the appointment process of the ACC and EC members, which is really the biggest factor behind their effectiveness and
proper functioning. And curiously, while all parties mention fighting corruption as a major goal, JP puts little emphasis on this issue, hardly mentioning it at all.
Separation of the judiciary
The hallmark of separation of the judiciary from the executive branch of government is fairness of selection and promotion of judges. BNP, during their last term, made a complete mockery of this and we can only
hope that they will learn from their mistakes.
However, BNP’s manifesto does not reflect that they are giving special importance to this issue, avoiding providing any meaningful details on their strategy except to say that an independent secretariat under the Supreme Court will be formed to execute this.
It boggles the mind to think how a secretariat under the Supreme Court is ensuring the separation of the judiciary. This is one issue that conscious citizens are going to put the BNP manifesto under the microscope for because of their abysmal track record, but there are no specifics to appease the doubtful mind.
The AL manifesto at least recognises the basic problem head-on and states that the appointment and promotion of judges will be independent of political influence – whether they will implement it, if elected to power, is another issue.
The age-old issue of secularism
For those who still uphold the ideals of secularism as a fundamental tenet of our nationalism, it is possibly somewhat heartening to see that AL still uses that word profusely in their manifesto and even goes on to say the following – ‘use of religion for politics will be stopped’ – but does
not explain what they really mean by that.
In the name of political expedience, AL has more than once ‘partnered’ up or has expressed willingness to ‘partner’ up with parties that do use religion for politics.
So, not many may believe that they really mean what they say in the manifesto, unless there is any reason to believe that they have evolved significantly in their thinking even with the same old leadership set firmly in place.
No other major party even mentions that word as if it conveys a sense of being anti-Islamic.
The trial of war criminals
AL also remains the sole major party still voicing the issue of trial of war criminals, although quite meekly. Under the section on good governance, the manifesto mentions as the first point: ‘Terrorism and religious extremism will be controlled with iron hand.
Trial of war criminals will be arranged’. The second sentence has no direct relevance to the first, but still they were lumped together in one point as if they were finding a place to put that issue in – is it that unimportant to not deserve a separate point in the manifesto?
While I wish the manifestos were more revealing and made the choice easier for voters, we have to live
with the fact that in Bangladeshi politics, we do not yet have a culture
of holding the winning party’s feet to the fire based on their election promises.
Until we have that culture, manifestos are not going to be much more than paper rhetoric – and we have to read between the lines to figure out what they want to say and what they want to avoid.
Mridul Chowdhury is a co-founder of Jagoree and CEO of a global social business venture. mcbangladesh@gmail.com
BALLOTSBLOG
Who needs a plan?
by Mahtab Haider
There is little doubt that ‘prices’ is by and large the most important issue that could sway voters one way or the other in the coming elections. Over the past three years, prices of food and other essentials have steadily risen — doubling or tripling in many cases — causing immense suffering to Bangladeshi families who have often been forced to sell their land or farming tools to survive. According to the Dhaka-based think-tank CPD, about 8.5 per cent of the population (almost 1.3 crore people) have slid below the poverty line this year as a result of inflation and the economic downturn. In fact, the military-backed interim administration’s fleeting popularity ran aground largely because they failed, first and foremost, in not only containing the price spiral — some of which was beyond its control — but also extending social safety nets to combat the consequent hunger and suffering. Of course, the slowing of investment and economic expansion, made matters worse by leaving millions jobless in an environment of rising prices.
Now, both parties realise this, and there are promises galore in their manifestoes and in their field campaigns, to reduce prices of food if elected to power. But how will either of the two main parties actually carry through on these promises? Will they impose price controls as the Russian government did last year? Will the government become an importer of food – using its stocks to level peaks resulting from shortages? Will there be a permanent agency that tracks prices and advises the government on easing or strengthening import restrictions? Will there be food rations for struggling families? Will they table Anti-trust laws that prevent importers from colluding and artificially fixing high prices for food?
The details are vague, and none of the parties in their post-1990 manifestations have shown that they are capable of effectively implementing any of these options that will go against a formidable food-essentials syndicate. As far as food prices go, none of the parties shown any real sincerity in discussing practicable solutions to the problem, though they realise it could sway many swing voters in their favour.
VOXPOP
The upcoming national elections include an option ‘None of the above’ in every ballot paper. All first-time voters,
students on Dhaka University campus tell Ariful Islam Mithu what they thought about the option...
Md Nahidul Islam
I think it is a very positive and constructive step. If there are no good candidates in the constituency, I have the opportunity to cast ‘No’ vote. It is also a means to reject the prevailing system.
Munir Ahmed Bhuiyan
Before, if I did not find a good candidate in the constituency I would have to cast vote for a one who is less corrupt than the others. This time, however, the ‘No’ vote option will let me reject them.
Munni Akter
The inclusion of ‘No’ vote this time is really a good thing. When I see that none of the candidates are worthy of being elected, I can cast the ‘no’ vote instead of sitting in home.
HM Al Imran Khan Raton
It is a praiseworthy initiative. We cannot cast votes without knowing the candidates. I do not want to spoil my vote either since a citizen can exercise this right once every five years only.
Nigar Sultana
In a constituency there may be several candidates. But if I do not like any of them, if they all have allegations of corruption, bribery, and so on why should I then vote for any of them?
Mosaraf Hossain
I support No vote because there are only two candidates running in my constituency from the two major alliances and I do not like either of them. So ‘No’ vote will naturally be of help.
Mahamud Hassan
It is good to have an option for No vote. Sometimes it is seen that at some places good candidates cannot be found. So this option to say ‘no’ to all the candidates allows for the possibility of re-election.
Abidur Rahaman
No vote has undoubtedly added a new dimension to the elections. Every candidate in a constituency may turn out to be criminals. But this time, instead of voting one to suppress another criminal, we can say no.
READERSPEAK
Manifestos
This year, the people, especially the younger generation, seem more conscious about the election, the candidates and their manifestos. I know of many people who have gone through these manifestos and are found discussing about these documents. This really is a positive sign that the youngsters of the country are taking interest in politics!
Tahmina Arman
North South University, Dhaka
Keeping their dirty options open
From the moment they started their election campaigns, both Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina have been repeatedly telling us that there is a conspiracy going on to rig the election. Neither of the leaders, however, presented any evidence or clues to support their claims. This kind of baseless claims prove one thing beyond doubt: that the two ladies have not changed. They are only doing this so that if they lose the election they will come out and say, ‘We told you, there was a conspiracy against us!’. And then they will go for their boycott and agitation programmes.
So much for learning, changing and reforming!
Azad Miah
Oldham, UK
Let FEMA monitor the polls
It is really surprising that the Election Commission has refused FEMA, the most experienced organisation in election monitoring, the permission to monitor the polls this year. People know FEMA has been working for free and fair elections since 1996. Thousands of concerned citizens across the country are involved with this organisation as volunteer activists and, during the election time, as election observers. Their reports are neutral and acceptable.
We urge the EC to reconsider its decision. This will certainly help create public confidence in the election process, especially when this election is being held in an atmosphere of uncertainties and suspicions.
Shafiqul Islam
Rajshahi
A fair election is a must
After two years of emergency rule, we are now finally getting an election.
It is unfortunate that the peo- ple i.e. the interim government who were supposed to be our beloved saviours became the oppressors.
The people who were supposed to safeguard the sovereignty be- came mere pawns of international politics.
A genuinely free, fair and credible election is the panacea that can heal all the pain, humiliation and sufferings the common people are going through.
Saeed
Dhaka
* * *
The army-backed Fakhruddin government came to power with the slogan of curbing corruption.
We admit that initially open corruption was reduced to a certain extent. But corruption has actually taken firmer roots in every sphere of life. The next elected government will have a hard time in fighting corruption.
Tanvir Alam
Via SMS
|
Next on Readerspeak
| |
a. EC finds 27 contestants guilty of code breach (New Age, December 23)
b. Manifestoes more populist than pragmatic (New Age, December 23)
c. Govt to sit with Hasina, Khaleda over ‘smooth’ power handover (New Age, December 23)
d. 493 candidates have no taxpaying history: NBR moves to expand tax net (New Age, December 23)
|
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
