Khadimul Islam interviews Abdul Jalil, the general secretary of the Awami League

New Age: In your electoral reforms proposal, your party has demanded that the armed forces be put under the command of the non-party caretaker government instead of the president during national polls. Do you really think that bringing the armed forces under the caretaker administration would help improve the quality of elections?
   Abdul Jalil: Yes, we do. You see, the president of the republic is actually being elected by a political party — the majority party in parliament. In normal circumstances, the president does not enjoy any executive authority, as he is to function on the advice of the prime minister.
   But as soon as parliament is dissolved, the president, under the existing constitutional scheme, is empowered with the executive authority, while the chief adviser of the non-party caretaker government, who is supposed to be the ‘replacement’ of the prime minister, is accountable to the president. This is not consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy in the first place.
   Besides, the president is elected by a political party, and it is only natural that he will have some loyalty to the party that made him president, and thus he might pay back the party during the parliamentary elections. So, you cannot rule out the possibility of abuse of executive authority of the state by the president to influence the polls in favour of the political party in question.
   For instance, we feel former president Shahabuddin Ahmed gave magistracy power to the armed forces and law enforces and manipulated the election result.
   Do you think that your party would have got more seats in 1996 had the army been under the command of the chief adviser of the caretaker government instead of the president? And how?
   1996 was different. A conspiracy to misuse the army was hatched at that time too. But it was the then chief adviser Habibur Rahman who foiled the bid. He brought in a check and balance of power.
   But what happened in 2001? By way of promulgating an ordinance, the president gave magistracy power to members of the law enforcing agencies and armed forces. We objected to the idea of indiscriminately giving magistracy power to various agencies, and we raised questions about the way the armed forces were deployed. But the president did not pay heed to our objections.
   Then, does it depend on the person designated for the task or on the system that we develop?
   Look, Habibur Rahman and Latifur Raham are not the same. You will not always get a person like Habibur Rahman.
   You are talking about a financially stronger, autonomous election commission these days. Why didn’t you incorporate such provisions when your party was in power for five years?
   When we were in power, we did not feel it that important, particularly the way we understand now. Besides, the then opposition parties did not make any demand. On our part, we came to realise the importance of the issue following the last general elections. I should rather say that the last general elections forced us to realise the importance of a stronger, independent election commission.
   Only in the October 2001 general election did we detect the defects in the electoral system and we now want to remove the defects.
   Your party, like many others, was found to violate some of electoral rules like submitting returns of election expenditures by the parties during the last elections. Why?
   True, many a political party or candidate violated certain laws, but the Election Commission is to be held responsible for that to a large extent: they did not enforce those laws properly. If the commission took steps to enforce the laws, we all would have obeyed them.
   The BNP often alleges that your party always wants to get its own political and constitutional agenda implemented by others…
   Why should there be an allegation? The demands have been raised as a consequence of certain political demands. Incidentally, the BNP remains in an advantageous position to amend the constitution. As incumbents, and that too having two-thirds majority in parliament, it is the responsibility of the party to amend a defective system by amending the constitution.
   Do you have any plans to boycott the next general elections if the BNP refuses to entertain the demands of your party, particularly the ones relating to the composition and jurisdiction of the caretaker government?
   We will not allow anyone to hold the elections without carrying out the reforms that we have proposed.
   Your party has proposed that the chief of the caretaker government be selected through a consensus of ‘all political parties’. On the other hand, your party has reacted sharply to the Election Commission’s move to hold dialogue with ‘all political parties’. Do you want the number of political parties to be limited?
   The Election Commission created a circus by inviting a huge number of ‘letterhead’ and unknown political parties. We are not for controlling the number of political parties, but the political parties should have people’s support, be familiar in society, and be experienced in conducting movements.
   By ‘all political parties’ we mean significant political parties enjoying support and confidence of the people.
   Do you support the Election Commission’s idea of having a law empowering the commission to cancel candidature of an errant contender for violating electoral laws during a general election?
   Yes, we do. The Awami League and its allies in the their proposal say, ‘The EC will be able to postpone or cancel election for violation of election laws and rules and issue order of arrest and to punish the violators during the period that the EC will be given judicial power.’
   Have you received any positive response from the people or the governing parties to your proposed reforms?
   We placed the reform proposals so that the people can properly exercise their right to franchise. The people have accepted it. As for the governing parties, they have apparently become puzzled, and have so far failed to clear their stance on the issue.
   We have called upon the incumbents to hold discussions on the proposals outside the parliament. If the government, following detailed discussions, accept our demands, we may go to parliament. Discussions on such proposed reforms were held outside parliament in 1991 and in 1996.

Shahidul Islam Chowdhury interviews Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, BNP standing committee member

New Age: Does the BNP have genuine political grounds in rejecting the opposition’s proposal for reforms to the non-party caretaker government system, or are your objections based merely on political egotism?
   Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain: No, our differences on the issue are not due to political egotism. Certainly, there are some political reasons.
   First and foremost, the Awami League’s reform proposal is the concern of the next caretaker government. It is not the BNP’s business to hold a free, fair and transparent election. Moreover, it is not the BNP’s responsibility to appoint the chief adviser of the caretaker administration. According to the constitution, the president appoints the chief adviser of the caretaker government that will be responsible to hold the election in a free, fair and transparent way. So, it is the president’s prerogative what he will do after the BNP quits from power. The BNP, after departing from government, will be on the same footing with the Awami League.
   Secondly, if we theoretically agree to consider their key proposal — which is to appoint a chief adviser in consultation with ‘all’ political parties — then finding a ‘person acceptable to all parties’ will be impossible. It is a harsh reality that no one in the country believes that the Awami League and the BNP — who fail to reach consensus on minimum national issues — would be successful in jointly agreeing on a person to be appointed chief adviser. The political parties’ failure to agree on such a person will definitely create a constitutional vacuum in the country.
   Thirdly, there is an ‘intellectual dishonesty’ in the proposal. We doubt if the Awami League really wants to realise its demands. If they really mean business, they would have given alternative proposals, which would be helpful to maintain constitutional continuity and create scope for political parties to discuss the proposals. But they did not do so. There would be no government if the president fails to appoint a chief adviser after consulting with all parties. In fact, the lawyers, who helped the Awami League in preparing the proposals did not do justice to their wisdom and integrity.
   The then BNP government had refused to meet opposition demands for incorporation of the caretaker system into the constitution in 1996. But eventually it was compelled to accept the demand in the face of street agitation by the opposition. If in a similar situation again this time around, how do you plan to tackle it this time?
   It is not correct to say that we amended the constitution to include the caretaker administration system in the face of street agitation in 1996. In fact, negotiation between the government and the opposition parties had broken down despite repeated efforts of the then Commonwealth secretary general. In this backdrop, we had felt that the government needed a two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the constitution. We held a general election on February 15, 1996, got two-thirds majority and amended the constitution to incorporate the caretaker administration system. The Awami League cannot claim credit for the provision.
   What is your party’s problem with discussing electoral law reforms?
   We refuse to discuss the caretaker issue because some of the key opposition demands, including finding out an ‘angel’ to be appointed as the chief adviser and entrusting him/her with the charge of the armed forces, are unconstitutional, impossible, impractical and unnecessary. We, however, can hold discussions to make the election procedures more transparent. We can discuss the methods of restricting participation of criminals, black money holders and the use of arms during elections. But this discussion should be held in parliament.
   The constitution cannot be amended by holding round-table discussions, with participation from parties that have one leader, one activist and one supporter. Street agitations cannot make the forthcoming elections more transparent. The Awami League should join parliament and place its proposals there. We can even form committees to hold discussions outside the parliament once the demands are placed in the house.
   The Awami League has said it would return to parliament if the government agrees, in principle, to the caretaker reforms proposals…
   How can a government agree to proposals that are devoid of the basic spirit of the constitution of the state, and particularly when such agreement would lead to a constitutional crisis in the country? As for joining parliament sessions, it is a prime responsibility of all lawmakers to do so, and should not be dependent on controversial political proposals.
   Have you discussed the reform proposals within the BNP or the four-party alliance?
   No, we don’t think it important to discuss the proposals as we have doubts about whether the Awami League really wants to make the initiative a success.
   Why is the BNP opposed to entrusting the armed forces with the chief adviser instead of the president?
   Entrusting the armed forces with the chief adviser, who takes office for three months only, does not go with the spirit of the constitution. The spirit of the constitution is that an elected person will command the forces. The president is the only elected person when the caretaker administration governs the country.
   Do you think the BNP would have won fewer seats in the 2001 elections if the armed forces were under the chief adviser?
   Firstly, we won as many seats as the people wanted us to through their votes. No more, no less. Secondly, after three general elections under the caretaker system that were all appreciated at home and abroad, we strongly believe that the ‘four-person factor’ — of the president, the chief adviser, the chief election commissioner and the chief of staff of the army — does not influence the election results.
   Before the 1996 elections, the president Abdur Rahman Biswas, the chief election commissioner Abu Hena, and the army chief Lieutenant General Nasim, were either elected or appointed by the then BNP government with a belief that they would not be harmful to the party. And according to the constitution, Justice Habibur Rahman was the obvious choice as the chief adviser. But the Awami League won the election.
   Then, when the Awami League was in power, they elected Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed as the president, appointed MA Syed as the chief election commissioner and some controversial persons as election commissioners. There were rumours that Syed was a pro-Awami League man. The then army chief, Lieutenant General Harun-ur-Rashid, was also Sheikh Hasina’s choice. Following the constitutional provisions, Justice Latifur Rahman was appointed as the chief adviser. But the BNP-led four-party alliance got absolute majority in parliament.
   It is therefore pretty clear that it is the people who determine the results.
   Awami League leaders have said that there will be no election before implementing the reform proposals. What will the BNP do if the AL decides to boycott the next elections?
   The Awami League, which had fixed April 30, 2004, as a deadline for the ouster of the BNP government, has some dubious motive behind the reform proposals. In fact, they have been repeatedly trying to create grounds to boycott the next elections as they have calculated that they would not win the polls. You see, when the party was in power between 1996 and 2001, it did not take any initiative for electoral law reforms. However, whether the Awami League takes part in the polls is up to them: we cannot force another political party to participate in or boycott the elections.
   Your party has been claimed that it also feels necessary to reform electoral laws and rules and to strengthen the Election Commission. But your party, like many others, have not followed many a provision of the existing rules in the past…
   Yes, we, the political parties, cannot observe many provisions as there are practical difficulties. But we believe the Election Commission should be strengthened; and the parties can discuss the issue.
   Will you support the idea floated by the chief election commissioner to cancel candidature for violating major election rules?
   No one can oppose the idea if the Election Commission exercises its authority logically. In fact, the commission has huge authority that is yet to be exercised.

Shahiduzzaman interviews Suranjit Sengupta, presidium member of the Awami League

New Age: You have proposed that the chief adviser of the caretaker government and the chief election commissioner be appointed upon consensus among all political parties. What will be the constitutional and legal framework for the selections?
   Suranjit Sengupta: The country is in a severe crisis. We are in a confrontational political situation. All the institutions are being destroyed by politicisation. In fact, the nation is under an autocratic regime. The basic cause of these crises is lack of free and fair elections.
   But the ruling alliance came to power through an election held under a caretaker government…
   That election was not a free and fair election. The caretaker regime that was in power during the 2001 election failed to uphold its neutrality and thus made the system of the caretaker government controversial. Hence, we have proposed reforms to the system.
   We have proposed that persons acceptable to all parties be appointed as chief adviser and chief election commissioner so that the elections can be free and fair. For an acceptable election, acceptable chief adviser and CEC are needed.
   How would those persons be selected?
   The framework for selection of a chief adviser acceptable to all parties is very much there in the existing constitution. The thirteenth amendment to the constitution has provided some options for appointment of the chief adviser, and the last but one option provided is on the basis of consultation with political parties. We have demanded exercise of this option. The demand is therefore not a strange idea.
   But the constitution stipulates that option to be considered as the last resort, but you are demanding that option be the first and only option. Should such a vague provision in the constitution be turned into a mandatory one?
   If it is a vague provision, then it is the ruling BNP that incorporated it into the constitution and now we are demanding implementation of the provision they have made. We want consensus on the appointment of the chief adviser. Without consensus we would have no constitution. Democracy will not be institutionalised without consensus.
   What process would you suggest as a way to arrive at a consensus on the issue?
   The problem lies with the sick mentality of the ruling party and the perverse politics that they pursue. If politics of decency is exercised, there will be no crisis in reaching a consensus. If they abandon the mentality of confrontation, destruction, corruption and crime, and are ready to exercise a political culture of consensus, then there will be no problem. We have a number of precedence of consensus. We did it in 1991. At that time no such question as regards problems of consensus was raised.
   By stating that consensus should be reached by ‘all parties’, who are you proposing to be consulted before appointing the chief adviser? What would be the criteria of selecting the parties?
   ‘All parties’ means majority of the parties. Sometimes the constitutional term ‘may’ becomes ‘must’ and ‘shall’ becomes ‘will’. This question has never been raised, whenever a consensus has been reached, and will not come this time as well. Nurul Amin won the election in 1970. Was the independence of the country obstructed by that? Did the nation not reach a consensus on independence?
   You are demanding that the chief adviser of the caretaker government enjoy the full authority of the prime minister of a parliamentary system during the interim period of non-party rule…
   Yes, we are. The powers and functions of the chief adviser must be in accordance with the parliamentary system.
   Ruling party leaders argue that this demand is not consistent with the spirit of the constitution and the democratic system, as the chief adviser of the caretaker government is not an elected office.
   It is not inconsistent with the constitution or the democratic system, rather it is the mandate of the constitution, constitutionality of the constitution. If they go by the supremacy of the constitution, the chief adviser will have the powers and functions of a prime minister under the parliamentary system. There is no scope for debate on this issue.
   Can the caretaker government function in the same manner as a government in parliamentary system when the caretaker government itself is accountable to the president during the interim period?
   No. This constitutional provision is also to be amended. The caretaker government cannot be accountable to a president who is elected by the majority party in parliament.
   Then, who should the caretaker government be accountable to?
   Let the caretaker government be accountable to the constitution, as the constitution is the supreme law of the land. They may be accountable to the rule of law, to the people and ultimately to the next government.
   How far is entrusting the armed forces under a non-elected chief adviser consistent with the constitution and the democratic system?
   When the whole responsibility of the election is given to the non-elected office, then why can we not have the armed forces under the non-elected chief adviser? We have proposed so to keep the armed forces above any controversy.
   You see, the president has given clemency to a party-man who had been awarded death penalty 22 years back. So, is there anything he cannot do? Is it safe to put the armed forces under him? So, the neutral caretaker government has to be absolutely neutral and defence must be put under the caretaker government.
   The distribution of power that has been contemplated in the constitution must remain the same during the caretaker government. If the parliamentary system will be followed for five years, then why should it be discontinued during the three months of the caretaker government?
   Ruling party leaders argue that the armed forces should remain under the president, which is the only elected office during the caretaker government…
   If so, why do they not put the defence ministry under the elected president during the five-year tenure of the elected government? They have not upheld the dignity of the office of the president through the twelfth amendment to the constitution. So, the proposition that they are putting forward now is not consistent with what they have practiced so far.
   Does it make any difference, particularly in terms of its impact on election results, if the armed forces are put under the chief adviser instead of the president?
   The army is an institution that has the experience of the liberation war. This army is the army of the United Nations peacekeeping corp. The army is above all debate. They must be kept out of any controversy for the sake of national interest. So we want that this institution must be kept in the hands of the office acceptable to all. Only the chief adviser and the Election Commission are competent to ensure proper utilisation of the defence forces during elections.
   Why did you not take any initiative for such reforms when your party was in power between 1996 and 2001?
   During our tenure no such reform proposal came up from any quarter. Had there been any, things could have been done. Moreover, we did not have the two-thirds majority in parliament.
   You placed a bill in parliament seeking amendment to the constitution for continuation of reservation of parliamentary seats for women, the passage of which would have required two-thirds majority.
   But, we could not pass the bill.
   But you did not even place a caretaker reforms bill in parliament.
   For reserved seats there was a constitutional mandate. Had there been any such mandate regarding caretaker reforms or had there been any proposal for that, we would have taken the initiative.
   You could have at least brought in reforms to the electoral laws.
   The question of such reforms did not come up during our rule. Had there been any such proposal we would have discussed the issue.
   You are demanding reforms to election laws while your party, like many others, did not observe many an electoral law and rule in the past, an important one being submission of the returns of its election expenses by the party.
   No, that is not correct. Submission of returns is a mandatory law. If someone fails to submit such returns, the election has to be void. It is not a matter for the parties, but for the individual candidates.

Shahiduzzaman interviews Moudud Ahmed, the law, justice and parliamentary
affairs minister

New Age: Do you see any constitutional or legal problems with the opposition proposal for amending the constitutional provision for the non-party caretaker government system?
   Moudud Ahmed: The constitutional arrangement of having a non-party caretaker government to run the country during general elections is a settled issue accepted by all the political parties of the country. Under this system two general elections, one in 1996 and another in 2001, have been held peacefully. The Awami League won an election and the BNP-led alliance the other. The constitution is the fundamental law of the country and it cannot be changed to suit the conveniences and inconveniences of any party. Every time an election is held, the loser will then demand further amendment to the constitution and this would stand as precedence. Both the elections held in 1996 and 2001 under the present constitutional arrangement were more or less free and fair and accepted by the people at home and abroad.
   The suggestion that the chief adviser has to be acceptable to all has two immediate implications — (1) the constitution will have to be amended; and (2) it will be extremely difficult to make such a provision in the constitution that the chief adviser will have to accepted ‘by all’. So their proposal is absurd, impractical and unrealistic. It will contravene the basic structure of the constitution and such a vague provision will lead to total anarchy and a collapse of the administration.
   The opposition parties argue that the caretaker government should be in tune with the spirit of the parliamentary system of governance, and thus the armed forces should remain under the command of the chief adviser, instead of the president. Why is the BNP opposed to the idea?
   Firstly, again, under the same system two interim governments have functioned. Secondly, this again will need an amendment to the constitution that cannot be considered as a logical proposition. An elected government headed by a prime minister and a non-elected interim government headed by a chief adviser for a period of only three months cannot be the same. The non-elected chief adviser cannot assume the exact powers and functions of the prime minister as practiced in a parliamentary system of government. The caretaker government is to carry on the routine functions of the administration and in the absence of parliament the advisers are collectively accountable to the president under the constitution. So, during the tenure of the caretaker government the armed forces have been placed under the president quite rightly, as the supreme command of the defence services is vested with the president under the parliamentary system of government practised in the country as well.
   The opposition has also demanded constitutional amendment to undo the present provision that makes the caretaker government accountable to the president, who is, as they claim, elected by a political party.
   That is not a correct proposition. The president is not elected by any party, rather by parliament. Secondly, the caretaker government must be accountable to someone. What will be the office or forum to which the caretaker government will be accountable to other than the president?
   The opposition says that the caretaker government will be accountable to their conscience, to the people and to the next parliament.
   That is also an absurd proposition, because the caretaker government no longer exists after the formation of a new parliament and taking office by a new government. Moreover, the president under the parliamentary system may remain a titular head, but his authority and responsibilities are bound to be different during the tenure of a non-elected interim government. During the interim period, he should obviously have a greater responsibility. So, as the caretaker government itself has to be accountable to the president, it is only reasonable that the armed forces will be under presidential command. During any kind of emergency, the president, being the only elected office during the tenure of the interim government, must have enormous responsibilities. So, we do not find any substance in the opposition argument, if at all there is any.
   Does it make any difference, particularly in terms of its impact on election results, if the armed forces are put under the chief adviser, instead of the president?
   It will as such have no effect on the elections. Defence does not only mean soldiers guarding the electoral constituencies. Some other more vital national interests are related to defence. As far as the assistance of the armed forces in conducting the elections goes, the same practice can be followed as has been done in earlier elections. There should not be any problem in seeking the cooperation of the armed forces during elections. It is immaterial under whose command the Ministry of Defence is, particularly as far as the election is concerned.
   Is there any possibility of dialogue between the government and the opposition on the reform proposals?
   The demands placed by the opposition are their political agenda. Being a minority in parliament, they want to impose it on the majority, but such an action itself is not democratic. However, it does not mean that they cannot voice their demands. But it cannot be the government’s agenda to implement them. If they want to discuss any of the demands, parliament is the only recognised forum where they are free to come and place their demands for negotiation and discussion.
   Your party has also felt that electoral laws should be reformed to improve the quality of elections. But the BNP, like many others, did not observe a set of exiting rules such as submission of returns of election expenses of the party…
   As far as the electoral process, procedures and laws are concerned, many of the opposition proposals are already there in the existing laws and rules. The rest could be negotiated. The Election Commission may be strengthened further. There can also be discussion on how to make the Election Commission a more effective institution. Discussion can also be held on stopping the use of black money and violence in the election.
   That none of the political parties follows the existing electoral laws and rules is a matter that the Election Commission has to address. It is up to the commission to ensure enforcement of election laws and rules. The commission should take punitive measures against those, including the ruling party, failing to behave.

Shahidul Islam Chowdhury interviews Rashed Khan Menon, the president of the Workers Party

New Age: Your party, as part of the opposition alliance, has proposed that the chief adviser of the caretaker government be chosen on consensus. What would be the mechanism to reach such a consensus be in a politically divisive society like ours?
   Rashed Khan Menon: Divisive political culture did not stand in the way of reaching consensus on issues of national interest in the past. In 1990, all parties involved reached a consensus to establish the caretaker administration system after the fall of the autocratic regime. In 1996, the BNP government, led by Khaleda Zia, had to hold an election to get two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the constitution and introduce the caretaker system in the face of tough agitation by the opposition parties.
   The people’s movement will lead the political parties to reach a consensus on the proposed reforms of the caretaker government system, which is important for continuity of the democratic system.
   You are demanding consensus among ‘all political parties’ and at the same time criticising the Election Commission for inviting ‘all political parties’ for dialogue.
   The Election Commission initially said that the parties that got symbols in the 2001 election would be invited. A total of 46 parties got symbols in that election. But the commission then invited 86 parties that had participated in the elections held between 1973 and 2001. Ultimately, the commission ended up inviting 116 parties. Clearly, the intention was to make the country’s political process questionable.
   Secondly, what ‘all’ means is the real question. I think that ‘political formulation’ is not ‘constitutional formulation’. And I believe the ‘all’ will eventually be defined by the people’s movement. According to my view, ‘all’ means meaningful majority. You cannot say you have consulted ‘all’ by inviting some people over from nearby streets.
   Thirdly, in 1996, the BNP did not feel the necessity to invite us. They alone amended the constitution.
   How would entrusting the armed forces under the command of the chief adviser, instead of the president, make the elections freer and fairer?
   Keeping the defence ministry under the president makes the caretaker system an imbalanced one by creating a dichotomy in the administration, in the first place. Secondly, according to the constitution, the chief adviser holds the responsibilities of the prime minister. Then why will the defence ministry not be given to the chief adviser?
   You see, we, the left, have been talking about this dichotomy since long — a dichotomy that may create a stand-off in the caretaker administration if the president and the advisers go beyond their routine work.
   In 1996, a stand-off was created between president Abdur Rahman Biswas, the army, and the chief adviser. The situation would have deteriorated if the chief adviser Justice Habibur Rahman had decided to engage in a row on sharing of authority with the president. In 2001, the Awami League and the Left Democratic Front raised questions about the deployment of the armed forces as a law enforcing agency.
   We never protested against the role that the army played in general elections held in 1970, 1973, 1979, 1986, 1991 and 1996, because those times the armed forces were deployed in aid of the civil administration. But in the 2001 elections, the army men played a questionable role during the elections. In many polling centres, including some in my constituency, they decided not to take any action despite specific allegations about the presence of people holding illegal arms.
   I, however, do not know if the army had any central plan to influence votes in particular constituencies. But I believe the army was not happy playing the role of a law enforcing agency.
   Do you think the Awami League and its allies would have got more seats in the 1996 elections had the armed forces been under the command of the chief adviser?
   There is no link between the armed forces being under the chief adviser and the bagging of more seats by a particular party. We are raising questions about the provision of deploying the forces. Earlier, they worked as a striking force, but in 2001 they were considered a law enforcing agency. Under the changed situation, any army captain can go and change the election scenario at a polling centre.
   Some BNP leaders argue that the president, the chief adviser, the chief election commissioner and the army chief cannot influence the polls results even if they are looking to do so. They claim it is the voters who determine the election results.
   We think the role of these four institutions is very important. In 1996 and 2001, the civil administration had played a key role in determining the election results. In fact, determination of election results in our country is not a matter of election-day events only. It is a matter of a big game, in which the administration, political parties and even foreign forces get involved.
   BNP leaders allege that the Awami League and its allies always try to get their political and constitutional agendas implemented by the BNP…
   That is the BNP’s limitation. Their vision is very narrow. They do nothing unless they are forced to do good things.
   Both the ruling and the opposition camps are talking about the need of reforms in electoral laws and rules, the strengthening of the Election Commission, etc. But none of the parties concerned, including yours, observed many a good electoral law and rule in the past…
   The proposal to strengthen the Election Commission came from the major political parties in 1990. But when in power, neither the BNP nor the Awami League had taken steps to give autonomy to the Election Commission. I think the chief election commissioner can play an important role, if he has the guts, to strengthen the commission. It is unfortunate that none of the CECs since 1990, except Abu Hena, did anything substantial to make the commission stronger and independent from the government.
   Will you support the idea floated by the chief election commissioner of cancelling candidature for violating major election rules?
   We have mentioned strengthening the Election Commission. But I do not understand why the present chief election commissioner has given half-hearted proposals to the government, although the constitution provides him with huge authority.
   Will you boycott the next general elections if the government does not accept the opposition’s reforms proposals?
   I believe the government will accept the proposals and the election will be held in time, with all concerned participating. An election without participation of the main opposition parties will be unacceptable to all.

Shahidul Islam Chowdhury interviews
Motiur Rahman Nizami, the amir of the
Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh

New Age: The Jamaat-e-Islami was a partner of the Awami League when you waged a movement in 1996 against the erstwhile BNP government to introduce the non-party caretaker government system for holding general elections. But this time as the Awami League and its allies have put forward a reforms proposal, you find yourself opposing the move…
   Motiur Rahman Nizami: It was rather we, the Jamaat-e-Islami, who had originally floated the idea of the caretaker government, and later it became a national demand that was finally institutionalized by the thirteenth amendment to the constitution.
   However, the Awami League’s present proposal for reforms to the system is ridden with many a problem. As for the demand for appointing the chief adviser and the advisers of the caretaker government through consensus, it is highly impractical in the first place, because in Bangladesh it is impossible to find a person acceptable to all the political parties. This is more so because it is difficult to ascertain the number of political parties operating in Bangladesh. Besides, the proposed provision for appointing the advisers by the president will undermine the authority of the chief adviser — who has the rank and status of the prime minister.
   An impractical proposition cannot be incorporated into the constitution. If it is done it will create political deadlock and constitutional crisis.
   What is your party’s position on the opposition proposal that the caretaker government should not remain accountable to the president?
   It is only right that the caretaker government be answerable to the president because he is the only elected representative among all the functionaries during the interim period.
   What about the proposal that the armed forces be put under the caretaker government, instead of the president?
   The proposal is ill-conceived and negates the principles of democracy. In the caretaker government all the functionaries except the president are non-elected. The principles of democracy suggest that the president, who is elected by members of the previous parliament, should be the supreme commander of the armed forces. This is all the more important to face any national emergency or crisis that may occur during the tenure of the caretaker government.
   The Awami League’s proposal is also defective because it says ‘the command of the armed forces of Bangladesh shall vest in the caretaker government’, but fails to specify whether the commander would be the chief adviser or any other advisor(s).
   But still, the Awami League has the right to raise the issues, however absurd they may be, on the floor of parliament, or move a constitution amendment bill.
   Do you think the Jamaat would have won fewer seats in the 2001 elections if the armed forces were under the chief adviser?
   This is not the issue. The issue is: whether it is right and proper to have armed forces under the caretaker government. We believe that the president as the only elected functionary in the system of the government should command the armed forces.
   Have you discussed the reform proposals within the Jamaat or the four-party alliance?
   We have not yet discussed these issues ‘formally’, because the country has not taken them seriously.
   Have you discussed the issues ‘informally’?
   Yes, we have discussed it ‘informally’. But it was so informal that it carries no importance. We may discuss it if the Awami League places the proposals in parliament.
   Are there any points in the reforms proposal that would be accepted by your party?
   We welcome discussion on all their reasonable proposals. The question of empowering the Election Commission and the amendments to the election laws and rules are welcome for discussion. For example, they have proposed that the Election Commission will have its own secretariat and it should have economic independence and so on and so forth.
   In a parliamentary democracy, the opposition is a part of the government. So it will be proper for the Awami League to bring a bill in parliament seeking changes to electoral laws and rules. Our party would not hesitate to accept any amendment to the existing election laws which will make the elections more free and fair.
   The Awami League has said it would return to parliament if the government agrees, in principle, to the caretaker reforms proposal…
   Even though it is a minority in parliament the Awami League wants to impose its will on the majority. This is, to say the least, an undemocratic attitude, and no civilized society can accept it. Moreover, all negotiations must be free, fair and without any preconditions. As a matter of fact the Awami League wants to boycott parliament for one reason or other, however unjustified they may be.
   Awami League president Sheikh Hasina has said that the government will be compelled to meet the opposition’s reforms proposal. Any comment?
   In a democracy what matters at the end of the day is public opinion. The leader of the opposition in parliament can fight the next election on the basis of her present reform programmes. And if she gets the people’s mandate, certainly she will be able to implement those mandates by bringing amendments to the constitution and other laws of the country. Apart from that, I am not aware of any other ways and means by which the caretaker government reforms programme can be implemented.
   The then BNP government had refused to meet opposition demands for incorporation of the caretaker system into the constitution in 1996. But eventually it was compelled to accept the demands in the face of street agitation by the then opposition parties, including Jamaat…
   The situation in 1996 was quite different. At that time there was no constitutional provision for holding the election under a caretaker government. The demand made by the political parties for introducing the caretaker government system became a national demand and the government of the day very rightly accepted that national demand.
   The present Government is very much respectful to public opinion, and as I have said earlier, any reasonable demand by the Awami League for electoral reforms would be seriously considered by the government, provided they are put forward in the form of a bill in parliament.
   The Election Commission is of the opinion that it should have the authority to cancel candidature for violating major election rules. Do you support this idea?
   This appears, on the face of it, to be a good proposal. However, it needs to be carefully scrutinised. And, if accepted, adequate safeguards should be given to the person to appeal against the decision of the Election Commission. All measures should be taken to ensure that not a single innocent person is victimised.
   The opposition parties have proposed to legally bar ‘war criminals’ of 1971 and those who opposed the country’s war of independence from contesting the elections. Do you have any comment?
   The Awami League was in power for two terms. In their first term they prepared a list of 195 Pakistani prisoners of war for trial as war criminals. But after the Simla Pact in 1972 signed by Bangladesh, India and Pakistan they allowed the POWs to go home and dropped the idea of trying the war criminals. It is for the Awami League to explain why they did not hold trials of the war criminals.
   Now who are the war criminals? Where is the list? Where is the law to try the so-called war criminals? Why did the Awami League not put those war criminals to trial when they were in power? These questions should be answered by them.

Khadimul Islam interviews Professor AK Azad Chowdhury, former vice-chancellor of Dhaka University and member of the AL advisory council

New Age: What are your views of the non-elected caretaker government system, which is essentially a suspension of democratic rule for the three months prior to national elections?
   AK Azad Chowdhury: The concept of the caretaker government was developed in our country due to distrust among the political parties. Unfortunately, the severity of the distrust has intensified further in recent years. In Third World countries, especially in one like ours, the political culture is of criminal politics: our political leaders do not trust each other. When a political party cannot tolerate an opposite political view or fails to show respect to its opposition, how do you expect the people, who are less involved in politics, to have confidence that they will hold an election in a free and fair manner.
   The opposition cannot trust the government as parties in power in the past have failed to create confidence in their ability to hold free and fair polls. For instance, in the general elections held in 1986, the then government of General Ershad stopped publishing results at midnight when the Awami League started bagging more seats than the ruling Jatiya Party. General Zia manipulated the results of the referendum in 1977 by using state power. And we all know what happened in the Magura by-election during the last BNP regime. All these incidents, of course, provided justification for the caretaker government system. As we cannot trust each other, we need a referee in order to play a fair game.
   Do you think reforms to the caretaker government provision are a necessity now?
   Reform is a continuous process. Anything that goes through this process reaches perfection. The constitution is not the Bible or the Qur’an that no one can amend it. The more reforms it goes through, the more perfection it will achieve.
   How do you evaluate the reforms proposal put forth by the Awami League and its allies?
   A tendency to politicise the judiciary has developed because of the provision that the caretaker chief will be from the judiciary. If it is amended as per the Awami League’s proposal, the provision for choosing the chief of the caretaker government will be wide open, and as a result the unhealthy race for being the head of the caretaker government will be reduced. Secondly, having to reach a consensus over the issue will lessen the gap between the political parties, as they have to sit across the table. I think the proposal provides a scope for the political parties to sit together for dialogue.
   Do you think at a time when leaders of rival political parties do not trust each other, it is possible to reach a consensus over such a sensitive issue?
   Only time can tell. We have a lot of experience and history in reaching consensus on major issues in the past. The Bangladeshi people, I think, remain ready to welcome steps that are progressive. They are ethnically and linguistically homogeneous and progressive-minded. So they are ell placed to reach consensuses. Look at the political scenario of 1990: all political parties formed a national consensus and established a caretaker government, didn’t they? Moreover, I believe that there is no problem in the world that cannot be solved through dialogue.
   Is it possible for the political parties to find a right person, who enjoys trust of ‘all’ parties…
   It is an absurd proposition that you cannot find a person acceptable to all parties in a country that has a population of 140 million. If all the parties sit down for dialogue, it won’t be difficult to find such a person. The word ‘all’ that the Awami League used actually means ‘all effective political parties’ that have made political, cultural and social contributions in the past years.
   Do you think there may be a crisis if the ruling BNP does not accept the Awami League’s reform proposals and the Awami League does not take part in the general elections scheduled to be held in 2007?
   Yes, that may happen. Without an opposition, the proper check and balance will not be maintained. If there is a crisis, the BNP will have to bear the most part of responsibility as they are now in power. Non-participation of major parties reduces credibility and legitimacy of the polls and the people will not accept them. Just look at what happened after the general elections of February15, 1996. The then ruling BNP could not stay in power.
   What are the ways such a crisis could be averted?
   There is only one way to solve the problem, and that is dialogue. And it is the government who will have to initiate the dialogue. Democracy will not be institutionalised without consensus.
   BNP leaders say the caretaker government is responsible for holding free and fair elections, and so the Awami League should raise its reform proposals after the BNP leaves office…
   The BNP leaders’ comments are irresponsible. The BNP leaders made such statements to shirk their responsibly. It is the responsibility of ruling party to pay heed to opposition demands as well as to make it easier for the next caretaker government to conduct a free and fair election. Without help of both major parties it would be difficult for the caretaker government to conduct a free and fair election.
   The opposition has demanded that the armed forces be put under the command of the non-party caretaker government instead of the president during national polls. But critics say the continuity of the democratic process would be hampered if a sensitive ministry such defence is not left under an elected person…
   There will be no change in the democratic process if the armed forces are put under the command of the non-party caretaker government. Rather the democratic process will be hampered if the president enjoys the power to direct the defence ministry. There should not be any change in the system, the president should act as he acts during the tenure of the elected government and the chief adviser of the caretaker government should enjoy the powers of an elected prime minister.
   If all the ministries are under the chief of the caretaker government, then why do you choose the president only to control the defence ministry? If the president is entitled with the power to direct the defence ministry, and if the defence ministry is the main source of power, then why don’t we arrange the election under the incumbent prime minister? In that case there would be no need for a caretaker government.
   Besides, the president is elected by a political party and he might pay back the party during the parliamentary elections. So, you cannot rule out the possibility of abuse of executive authority of the state by the president to influence the polls in favour of the political party in question.

Shahidul Islam Chowdhury interviews Professor M Ataur Rahman, the president of the Bangladesh Political Science Association

New Age: How do you evaluate the non-party caretaker government system from the point of view of democracy?
   M Ataur Rahman: The caretaker government system was introduced as the nation wanted to hold general elections under a credible system. No other democratic country, except Bangladesh, has such a unique system of caretaker government. Three general elections have been held under the system without any major irregularity. Here credibility is the spirit.
   During the caretaker government’s regime, the country goes back to the presidential system. Is that a digression from the fundamental spirit of the constitution?
   I do not observe any digression in the process by which the three caretaker governments had worked. The three presidents, Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed [1990-91], Abdur Rahman Biswas [1991-1996] and again Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed [1996-2001], had not exercised whatever authorities they had over the caretaker governments. No one had questioned their integrity. The chief advisers, who were the presiding authorities of the advisers’ councils, had enjoyed freedom in discharging their responsibilities.
   Do you think the caretaker government system needs reform?
   Reform is an ongoing process in political culture. It is not a revolutionary process which would work like magic. Reform, by its nature, is an incremental addition to the existing process. But what the Awami League has proposed in its charter of demands is very much revolutionary. It is almost impossible to make such revolutionary changes in a short period in any political system.
   I think reforming the caretaker system, by making the president totally disabled by entrusting the defence services to the chief adviser, will not be helpful for the country. In fact, the country needs a total reform of its political system to make politics healthy: free from black money and from muscle power. We need qualitative change in the parties’ leadership and inter-party relation must be improved.
   The Awami League is demanding the appointment of the chief adviser of the caretaker government after consulting ‘all parties’. What do you think of the proposal?
   Politics is sometimes called the art of possibilities. I do not want to term the Awami League’s plan impossible. It is, rather, impractical in Bangladesh’s political situation. I think it is unrealistic to suggest the selection of a person to be entrusted with all the state’s powers after consulting more than 100 political parties. Especially given the terrible inter-party relations here. It would be practical if they suggest ‘consulting major political parties’ or ‘reintegrated parties’ or ‘parties which have seats in the parliament’.
   What does ‘consensus’ mean? Is it a majority rule where ‘two parties, among six parties, must agree with four parties’ decision’? Consensus in finding a person or a group of persons to conduct general elections is very difficult in Bangladesh where the political parties cannot achieve minimum agreement on national issues and interests.
   Do you think the political parties’ own failures have compelled the parties’ to make the non-party caretaker system stronger?
   You are right. Bangladeshi political parties have mostly failed to discharge their responsibility to expedite political, economic and social development processes. None of the political leadership has been successful in contributing anything positive to the political culture. The ruling party has failed, to some extent, to practice parliamentary democracy in the true sense by failing to bring the main opposition party back to Jatiya Sangsad. Similarly, the main opposition party has failed to mobilise mass support by raising their issues in and outside parliament. They criticise the government but fail to suggest any logical alternatives to curb corruption, improving living standards and law and order.
   BNP leaders say the caretaker government is responsible to hold free and fair elections and so the Awami League should raise its reforms proposal after the BNP leaves office…
   The statement does not sound logical. Yes, the caretaker government is primarily responsible to conduct free and fair elections — but, obviously, with the help of major political parties. But the opposition has not taken a rational step by pushing the government into a critical situation by demanding ‘everything’ when the government’s tenure is about to finish. Why did the Awami League not raise caretaker reform issues, if these are really important, when they were in power? At least they could do something if they meant business.
   The BNP says it is necessary to maintain continuity of the democratic system during the caretaker government and the armed forces should be kept under the elected president, while the Awami League wants to hand over all responsibilities of the prime minister, including the defence services, to the chief adviser to uphold the ‘spirit of parliamentary democracy’…
   I am astonished observing how the politicians play their cards the way they want but all in the name of democracy — which truly means people’s rule; and the constitution is the guarantor. In an ideal parliamentary democracy, the prime minister should be the first among equals. But, here, the prime minister enjoys absolute authority. The Bangladeshi prime minister is more powerful than the US president as the PM is the chief of the ruling party. Moreover, the US president is accountable in real the sense to the Congress.
   Why did the Awami League not suggest entrusting the defence services to the chief adviser when the parliament had approved the thirteenth amendment of the constitution? It is an expression of mistrust of the president, who practically does not enjoy any authority, by suggesting withdrawal of the defence services from his command. It will undermine the president. I believe the president should be given more power to overcome the existing imbalance between president and prime minister.
   Awami League leaders say the party would boycott the elections if the government does not accept the reforms proposal. Will the Awami League’s stance create a crisis in the country?
   It would be a threat to our budding democracy, especially when we are already going nowhere in terms of political accommodation. Everybody is free to contest or not to contest the elections. It is voluntary. A constitutional crisis will not arise if some party abstains from the polls. But non-participation of the major parties reduces credibility and legitimacy of the polls. And the government elected through those polls becomes weak as it suffers from the lack of credibility. It would be a threat to democracy. And the political situation would become unstable.
   How can such a crisis be averted?
   Democracy is a ‘deliberation’ form of government. Continuous dialogue and understanding among the political parties is a prerequisite of democracy. I think now is the time for the parties to abandon their power-hungry nature, for the government to invite major political parties to discuss the issues, whatever those are. The main opposition parties should welcome the government’s initiative, if there is any, and participate in the dialogue.
   Some members of the Awami League think tank suggest that the immediate past chief justice, KM Hasan, should be embarrassed to be the next chief adviser…
   It is again an irrational suggestion. What’s wrong in accepting a person as the chief adviser if he was well-accepted as chief justice? I think the credibility of a person depends on his performance — not on his political affinity. Any chief justice may be questioned if it becomes a tendency to raise questions about a specific chief justice.