THERE was finally some movement on the issue of electoral reforms this week when the military-controlled interim government approved in principle the package of reforms proposed by the Election Commission. The Representation of People Order Ordinance 2008, incorporating all the new proposals, is likely to receive its final approval before the end of this month.
   Although an inordinate amount of foot-dragging has taken place over the last year and a half on this issue – after all, what valid reason could there possibly be for the commission to have taken from February of last year to July of this year to come up with such a predictable set of proposals – one nevertheless cannot but see this as a positive development. Also, the shifting of the focus away from the implementation of this regime’s perceived political agenda to the issue of electoral reform is extremely desirable at this time, particularly given that the political scenario is becoming increasingly murkier and doubts about the credibility of elections held under this regime and by this commission growing every day.
   Having said that, the reforms package itself deserves greater scrutiny, not least because at least one important provision contained within it appears to be contrary to the very idea of a pluralistic democracy while some others will have little or no practical value in the end. But first, a look at the provisions that the Election Commission got right.
   The introduction of a ‘no’ vote on the ballot and the provision of re-elections at constituencies where ‘no’ votes constitute more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, once introduced, can have positive implications for the future of democracy in our country. The opportunity to actively and democratically reject the choices that are on offer will, one hopes, increase voter participation on the one hand and give those who do vote the opportunity to avoid choosing from, in many cases, the lesser of two or more evils. Moreover, this not only affords voters the chance to actively reject the choices they have, but, more importantly, the opportunity to protest against or reject altogether the very nature of our politics. If significant numbers of ‘no’ votes are cast, it will force the parties as well as the candidates to take note and act on it, even if the numbers aren’t enough to force re-elections. If nothing else, it will provide a better measure of a candidate’s actual popularity when those who reluctantly vote for one candidate or another is able to go to the polls and vote for no candidate at all. This is definitely a step in the right direction and the commission as well as the current regime deserves credit for it.
   The provisions related to the financing of elections and the increases in spending limits are also positive changes. The raising of the candidate spending limit per constituency from Tk 5 lakh to Tk 15 lakh is reasonable for two reasons. First, given that each constituency now has an average population of 5 lakh people and taking into account the inflation that has taken place since the last time the limit was set, the new Tk 15 lakh limit does not appear to be much of a raise in real terms at all. Moreover, election spending by the major party candidates in the vast majority of constituencies far outstrips the limit anyway. While it is true that the Election Commission will have to do a better job of monitoring election spending by candidates and take those who violate the rules to task, it is equally true that the earlier limit was too low in the present context and hence, impractical. The commission has a better chance of enforcing the new limit, but even that will be difficult given the amount of money some of these candidates have become used to spending. The new proposals have included a Tk 10 lakh penalty for those who violate spending limits and cancellation of candidature for those who provide the commission false information. The commission will have to be absolutely unforgiving in the way it penalises candidates who violate the law if it has to have any chance of enforcing those laws. This has not been the case in the past and the obvious result has been the repeated and flagrant violations of electoral laws by candidates as well as parties.
   The provisions to bar candidates from contesting in more than three constituencies each (it used to be five constituencies), while being a step in the right direction, does not go far enough. A candidate can only hold one seat in parliament after all, and hence, allowing candidates to contest in multiple seats makes little sense and should have been gotten rid of altogether. It only enforces a top-down two-party system without having any positive implications for democracy or governance. Also, the bar on government officers from contesting in elections for the three years following their retirement was necessary given their increasing proclivity to associate themselves in party politics while still in government service in the hopes of landing a nomination immediately following retirement. The government should consider increasing it to five years.
   The criteria set for political parties to qualify for mandatory registration is, however, highly objectionable. According to the commission’s proposal, in order to be registered, a political party must have won at least one parliamentary seat in any of the elections since the country’s independence, or obtained five per cent of the total votes cast, or have active units and a certain minimum number of members in at least one-third of the districts or 100 upazilas of the country. This is clearly ultra vires of the constitution, which, under Article 152 (1) that deals with political parties, does not require a political party to have any minimum level of popularity or infrastructure in order for the state to recognise its legitimacy. Furthermore, as this newspaper pointed out in an editorial printed on Tuesday, there is intellectual absurdity in setting down technical requirements for the ‘legitimacy of a set of ideas — essentially the principle behind a political party’. In a pluralistic democracy, political parties should be allowed to legally exist and function without having to show a minimum support for its ideas and policies. While mandatory registration of political parties is desirable, the commission’s criteria for qualification are not. These will only make it more difficult for new political parties to grow from the grassroots up and propagate the need for parties to grow from top-down. Also, given that increasing influence of money on elections, these criteria will further marginalise the parties that do not have the financial strength to compete with the larger political parties. Again, this perpetuates a rigid two-party system.
   As for the ban on students’ and workers’ fronts of political parties, this is not altogether objectionable as long as students and workers are allowed to assemble and participate in political activity. Attempt to stop the political parties from using students and workers as political foot-soldiers, as is the case at present, is welcome. However, if this government is attempting to depoliticise students and workers, who have every right to form associations and play an active part in country’s politics, this is neither endorsable and nor will it ultimately work. Moreover, why the Election Commission and the regime have such strong objections to overseas units of our political parties and how this is in any way relevant to our politics is beyond comprehension. If Bangladeshis in other parts of the world wish to get together and form overseas units of our political parties, the only real factor to consider should be whether their activities adhere to the laws of the countries in which they reside. How exactly does our government hope to enforce this if the overseas units become a little creative with their names? Why should our parties here be penalised for the actions of Bangladeshis in other countries who are neither doing anything illegal nor disturbing the peace? This, again, is absurd.
   Lastly, the ban on war criminal from contesting in elections can, at best, be called a gimmick. This is unfortunate because the issue of war crimes is not one that should lend itself to gimmicks. In a country where alleged war criminals, including the worst offenders, were never formally tried, much less convicted of war crimes, what good is it to have a law that bans convicted war criminals from contesting in elections? Will any of the candidates who contested in the last parliamentary elections fall foul of this new rule on account of having been convicted of war crimes? The long and the short answers are no. Hence, this is nothing but an empty gesture that is of absolutely no practical value.
   On balance, the Election Commission and the current regime have got it more right than wrong. This is promising but much will depend on the ability and willingness of the commission to impartially enforce electoral laws in future, particularly in the face of pressure from governments and parties. That is where the ultimate test will lie.