Editorial
Political crisis requires
political solution
The military-controlled interim government of Fakhruddin Ahmed took over from the discredited ‘caretaker administration’ of President Iajuddin Ahmed under a state of emergency almost a year back with the self-professed objective of helping the country overcome the political crisis prevailing then, upholding and consolidating ‘the democratic system through ensuring a congenial political and social environment, holding a free and fair election and ensuring the people’s voting rights.’ In reality, however, the government has seemingly done just the opposite. It has induced a climate of fear in social and political milieu, which has predictably had a debilitating impact on the economy; overstepped the constitutional boundary vis-à-vis its mandate and jurisdiction, which has raised questions about its constitutional legitimacy; and created further political uncertainty by trying, so far unsuccessfully, to redraw the political landscape through its so-called ‘minus-two formula.’ Overall, the government seems to have compounded the crisis rather than resolving it.
The resignation of four advisers on Tuesday is the latest in the series of crises that the interim government seems to have created for itself and the country. What prompted the four advisers to resign is not clear and the government has not yet come up with any clarification other than the press secretary to the chief adviser telling journalists on Tuesday that they had resigned on personal grounds. Meanwhile, there have been reports that the four advisers were called in to the Chief Adviser’s Officer and asked to resign. If the four advisers did resign on personal grounds, it could be an indication that they did not agree with either the mandate or the programmes of the interim government as they stand now. On the other hand, if they were asked to resign, it could be construed as an indirect admission by the interim government and its military backers that these four had put the incumbents into disrepute and caused erosion of its public acceptability. Should that be the case, it should be pointed out that the council of advisers is collectively responsible for whatever the government does or does not do, and that the country has further sunken into crisis because of its collective lack of political understanding of the statecraft. Making one adviser or the other scapegoat for its collective failure would not help in any way to resolve the crisis.
The interim government must realise that the current crisis is political and has to be resolved politically. Therefore, the most prudent step for it to take would be to engage in talks with the political parties to reach consensus on how best to return the country to a democratic fold, to be governed by the people’s elected representatives. Simply put, the incumbents should consult with the political establishments to devise ways and means to complete the task it is assigned by the constitution, i.e. assisting the Election Commission to hold contested and credible general elections.
Redrawing of JS seats must not
deflect EC from its main task
The Election Commission has now adopted a fresh agenda, the delimitation of constituencies, without consultation with political parties, it seems. The commission has adopted a set of guidelines for delimiting parliamentary constituencies and is using the population quota system as a first step for allocating seats in the districts. The chief election commissioner, ATM Shamsul Huda, said it was their constitutional obligation to delimit the constituencies as the 2001 census report was published only recently.
It should be recalled that the present election commission is a reconstituted one entrusted to hold a free and fair election untrammelled by controversies which were the bane of the previous commission. Therefore, popular expectation from this commission is great and so it is desired that the commission remain focused upon its primary task. Unfortunately, the reconstituted commission generated new controversies and veered beyond its mandate without regard to the very limited timeframe allotted it for holding the election.
To accomplish its foremost task the commission was required to achieve two goals on a high priority basis: prepare a convincing electoral roll and carry out the necessary electoral law reforms. The simple task of preparing voters’ roll was escalated into a grand scheme of pictorial identity card (for which there was no pressing demand) causing avoidable delay and increasing the people’s sense of uncertainty. As for framing of electoral laws, this was stalled because the commission itself invited controversy by preferring one faction of the BNP over another. And now it is unnecessarily burdening itself further by its move to carve out anew the parliamentary seats. We have no idea whether the re-demarcation of seats is necessary but considering the numerous exigencies which define the commission’s immediate responsibility, the move even if well-intentioned is ill-timed. The change in the status quo will spawn endless series of objections and the commission will be entangled in a crippling mesh of lawsuits. The commission has admitted that after the last delimitation of constituencies in 1995 it had to spend more than six months to dispose of the objections. Then why venture into a field for which there is no mandate? This will further delay the holding of election. In common perception it may appear, rightly or wrongly, as a ruse to defer the election and prolong the rule by non-elected people.
Periodic review of the constituencies may be necessary but neither the holding of election nor the election’s credibility hinges on it. The review is a matter of elaborate discussion, at political and other levels and should better be left to the future political government. Moreover, when delimitation is made, is it necessary to mix up administrative division (district) with demographic division (parliamentary seat)? These are matters to be sorted out through free and extensive debate and not by fiat. For the present, the commission must not bite off more than it can chew.
Situation of human rights
in the world today
The world has to think again, reinvent global consensus but with teeth. But human rights are essentially a local matter. Reinvention of methods and means must start at home. But not by sanitised seminars or by spent intellectuals many of who are still beholden to ideas and dogmas of bygone times. We need new actors who are modern in tune with changed times, intelligent and incisive, and adept with strategic thinking, writes Dr Zakir Husain
IT IS a changed world today. The ‘war on terror’ has turned human rights upside down.
The post-9/11 world is riddled with violations of human rights and civil liberties with unprecedented impunity; even the bastions of human rights and democracy are tainted by gross abuses of human rights under the pretext of national security or clash of values.
In that world, there are limits and there are compulsions perhaps that challenge the objectivity and impartiality of most human rights organisations. What hurts more is the ineffectiveness and impotence human rights agencies and activist groups in rolling back many violations by state and non-state actors.
The secretary general of Amnesty International is currently in Dhaka. The organisation Irene Khan heads is probably the most credible monitor and reporter of human rights situations in the world today. Expectations are high, perhaps too high.
To those who expect Amnesty to exert influence and pressure upon state actors sufficient enough will be disillusioned. Evidence suggests that powerful states – America and Britain for example – have ignored reports by Amnesty and others. That is also the case for autocratic regimes sometimes dressed in the trappings of democracy; when declared as friendly or allies in the war on terror, such regimes have been shielded. The selective impunity some states demand defeats the work by the human rights watchdogs. Some of these watchdogs and most major media are complicit with violation of rights.
The reality is: international human rights watchdogs can monitor and report violations, can even name and shame some offending regimes that are weaker and undemocratic.
But with limited remit and access they are in no position to reverse many violations of rights and principles they wish to. Amnesty had been granted restricted access to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp run by the US where inmates had reported abysmal abuses. Human rights bodies demand and often get intrusive access in the so-called third world. But with all that the actual clout of Amnesty or any other body remains minimal.
The secretary general of Amnesty has earned reputation for being one of the more outspoken critics of human rights abuses anywhere. But expectations of Irene Khan’s current visit to Bangladesh should not be overblown. She should be perfectly aware of limitations upon what and how much could her agency deliver.
Yet, the notion that ‘outsiders’ have better access and could exert pressure on state actor persists in Bangladesh for example. This is in conformity with the habit of seeking approval by a global agency supporting the belief that an outside agency enjoys higher credibility or clout than a national agency.
Could this be the lingering colonial infamy that nurtures a patron-client relationship? It is one thing that in trade and investment the poor weak countries are beholden to the rich and powerful for concessions.
But why should that kind of unequal relationship be allowed in matters of human rights and liberties?
This hankering after endorsement by foreign or global tutors does little to build confidence and self-reliance. Why should local activists sit in the second row behind global counterparts?
That said, Amnesty performs a useful role; it still needs to be unflinching and even daring to note and report abuses no matter by whom or where they occur. Reporting has its value and use as keepers of conscience of the world and raise the moral bar of those who claim moral high grounds. It is here that objectivity and neutrality count much. It is here Amnesty needs to scrutinise its own record and mend its shortcoming where found. Here Amnesty and others need to introspect, reflect and redress.
The world has other actors and activists who tirelessly defend human rights and report violations. But Amnesty being one with global reach has to distinguish itself above all others in my view. But Amnesty’s record on Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, the two notoriously negative instances of abysmal abuses by the acclaimed champion, fell way short of expectations; Amnesty was tepid and prevaricating on both those cases. If that was because the offender is powerful and formidable we can speculate but do not know. Whatever, Amnesty did not come out with flying colours. That is a pity and a loss to the world of outraged citizens everywhere.
Do we take those global watchdogs like Amnesty could be unwilling or unable to confront the abuses by the very intimidating and powerful actors? If Amnesty chooses to cut corners and compromise on issues of substance where does that lead the world of human rights activists to?
Irene Khan is not an international civil servant who could be persuaded to prevaricate or obliged to find extenuating conditions on behalf of a state actor.
Indeed, Amnesty and other organisations active in human rights defence need to be fair, objective and balanced; need to come down unequivocally upon violations be those by state actors or non-state actors. I would argue they need to come down more strictly or harshly if you like upon state actors whose duty and responsibility it is to not transgress the citizens’ rights to which most if not all of them are officially and formally committed under global charter or conventions.
Irene Khan has spoken. She spoke at the now popular BBC Sanglap in Dhaka on January 6. Yet, as head of Amnesty she sounded uncharacteristically and unexpectedly vacillating if not equivocating; she could manage to navigate herself (and Amnesty) in rough waters defensively with abundant caution. For reasons suggestive though not stated.
If an organisation of Amnesty’s ilk proposes selective protection of fundamental rights even if suspended temporarily or winks at violation of some others, Irene did not do service to the mission her organisation.
Biology comes to mind, as also does the law of nature. One could not be half-pregnant; either one is or is not. Also comes to mind the much used and abused doctrine of post 9/11 ‘war on terror’ – a doctrine articulated by none less than the American president, George W Bush. He proclaimed: Either you are with us or you are against us.
He also swiftly passed the Patriot Act – an act that effectively curbed many civil liberties fought for and won by people of America at high cost. Any other country with an act like that would have raised concern and consternation of the world, including particularly by human rights bodies. How did Amnesty respond or react?
People in countries run by non-democratic regimes in particular find themselves powerless; are somehow led to expect too much from global watchdogs; but they are likely to be disappointed in the end. More on this on another occasion.
States by definition enjoy sovereign equality though some are more equal than the rest. That is a fact of life in this less than ideal world. But everywhere it is the people who are the true masters, are the fountain of sovereignty.
No entity whether affiliated to the United Nations or global human rights watchdogs could alone or effectively shoulder the burden of enforcing and protecting human rights, or deliver tangible human rights where those are denied.
Sixty years after the Declaration of Universal Human Rights by the United Nations, after the ratification of the Geneva Conventions, the world today has not come anywhere near to those goals. The divide between global collectivity and national conduct on the ground is widening. So one could with very good cause question the ultimate effectiveness of all global bodies and all universal conventions combined. The track record speaks for itself.
Yes, human rights stick has been used to invade occupy culprit countries or change offending regimes but only by the mighty superpower and only selectively. That not only failed and fouled the scene but also made the situation even worse, and at great human cost.
The world has to think again, reinvent global consensus but with teeth. But human rights are essentially a local matter. Reinvention of methods and means must start at home. But not by sanitised seminars or by spent intellectuals many of who are still beholden to ideas and dogmas of bygone times. We need new actors who are modern in tune with changed times, intelligent and incisive, and adept with strategic thinking.
The modern players need to be quick and sharp with analysis and in design of strategic options in a given ground reality. This could take years of trial and learning. But the robustness and practical relevance of a thousand flowers of resistance and rejection cannot be underestimated.
Anything other than violence should be legitimate tool and method of assertion of human rights – by the people and for the people. In my opinion only the collective will and awareness of people can secure the human rights of citizens like no other.
Civil society, the press and media, dedicated civil groups of artists, actors, educators and students have the right and responsibility to raise awareness.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
