& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

The Daily Star Public Debate

The Proposition is: Should the Next General Elections be Held under a Caretaker Government?
***Barrister Moudud Ahmed, MP, and Leader of Jatiya Party's Parliamentary Wing argues that the general elections should be held under a non-partisan caretaker government.**
**In 1990, when the opposition parties had raised this question, the erstwhile ruling Jatiya Party (JP) leaders used the same language as the present BNP leaders are using: that the demand for an interim government is unconstitutional.
But ultimately it is politics which decided the issue and the JP government showed respect to the wishes of the people by handing over power although there was no provision for such an interim government in the constitution. The present governing party leaders try to argue that the situation is not the same because, according to them, the JP government was an illegal one. This argument is a very feeble one and would not stand constitutionally. Because, (a) it was a government very much under the constitution and the elections both in 1986 and 1988 were also held under the constitution, notwithstanding the fact that two major political parties did take part in the 1988 elections; (b) if that government was illegal, the handing over of state power to the Chief Justice and all his subsequent acts including the holding of elections in 1991 and formation of the new parliament will suffer from illegality, or lack of constitutional sanction.***
THE debate centering on the question .whether the country should have a non-partisan Saretaker government for holding national level elections involves a political issue and not a constitutional one. It Is politics more than constitutionalism, which will determine whether or not we will have a neutral government during the time of the next general elections.
But the pieces which have . so far appeared on the subject in these columns seemed to be more in a straight-Jacket form raising a constitutional debate than dealing with a political question.
'It should be made clear at the outset before entering into any argument that to demand an interim neutral government is not aimed at dethroning the present government, but to provide an institutional framework which will be applicable to all the democratically elected future government as well.
So the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) should not take a partisan point of view or feel hurt that it has to feave its control over the administration before the nation has its next general elections.
We should remember that we are taking about democracy in one of the most impoverished societies of the world where institutions are yet to be developed, and the culture of politics is in an embryonic stage with Individuals and their wishes and behaviours playing a more dominant role than any existing institution.
Having earned our freedom only two decades ago - the first in our entire history, the country is still in a state of underdevelopment. Yet the challenge to sustain democracy, though an extremely difficult task, has to be faced with courage and objectivity.
In order to sustain democracy we have to ensure a truly representative government, the essential precondition of which Is holding of a free and fair election. If the fairness of the election itself Is questioned. then the credibility of the representative government goes and thereby the very democratic order will lose Its strength.
So the right to franchise is to be guaranteed. The voters must have a right of choice to be exercised freely and without fear. A voter will have to be given or ensured an environment- where he can exercise his right to choose a representative of his own free will
A candidate aspiring to be a public representative must also feel free and comfortable in conducting his election campaign to seek the confidence of Ijis voters. This is being a fundamental requirement of sustaining a democratic order, the matter has to be looked at from the standpoint of under what conditions a relatively better environment will prevail in which the voters will not be threatened, coerced, influenced or deprived of their right to vote at the time of elections. • Our experience has shqwn that any general election held under a partisan gov
eminent has had a stigma attached to it.
' A party In power tends to use various means to influence elections ’: the huge state wealth and the largesse'at the disposal of government, the fear that it can instil in the minds of people, the favours it may distribute like wheat, sheets of tin. and other forms of patronage.
The officials down below who are actually responsible for conducting the elections ■remain under constant fear and threat of ruling party candidates Which debars them from.discharging their duties freely . and independently. These are the hard realities
which should not and can not be ignored.
Those who are against having an interim government have gut forward three main points :
1. There is no provision in the constitution for an Interim government.
2. A non-elected Interim government can not be a substitute for the present elected government.
3. Strengthening the power and function of the Election Commission ^EC) and ,Improvement of the present system of voting hold the answer — not an interim government.
The first point that there is no provision in the Constitution for such an interim atl ministration, is very naive. I have already said that what we face is a political issue. Oncp we can decide politically that it would be good for the country to have general elections under a neutral caretaker government. the amendment to the Constitution required for the purpose will take no time to be in place. If our alm is to sustain a democratic order and consolidate and institutionalise democracy which I think should enjoy our highest consideration and priority, then the Constitution can be amended by an all-party consensus. There may not be a
provision for an Interim government in the constitution at the moment, but there Is no prohibition against It either.
In 1990. when the opposition parties had raised this question, the erstwhile ruling Jatiya Party (JP) leaders used the same language as the pre-' sent BNP leaders are using : that the demand for an.interim government is unconstitutional.
But ultimately it is politics which decided the issue and the JP government, showed respect to the wishes of the people by handing over power although - there was no provision for such an interim government in the constitution. The present governing party leaders try to argue that the situation is not the same because. according to them, the JP government was an illegal one. This argument is a very feeble one and would not stand constitutionally. Because, (a) it was a government very much under the constitution and the elections both in 1986 and 1988 were also held under the constitution, notwithstanding
the fact that two major political parties did take part in the 1988 elections; (b) if that government was illegal. the handing over of state power to the chief Justice and all pls subsequent acts Including th^. holding of elections in 1991 and formation of the new parliament will suffer from illegality, or lack of constitutional sanction.
Then the question whether we will be undermining the position of an interim’ govern-■pent by way of having a nonelected caretaker government temporarily, is again untenable In the sense that the proposed interim government is claimed by none to be a substitute for an elected government.
It will exist for. say, 60 to 90 days only to enable another elected government to come In its place. In a parliamentary system of government, there should not be any false notion that any government is elected for five years. This is a very wrong assumption.
The constitution only lays down a maximum tenure of five years. It does not necessarily suggest that the Parliament can not be dissolved before the expiry of the five-year tenure. The essential Ingredient of a parliamentary system Is that the government njay change at
anytime and the parliament also may be dissolved at any stage. Whether it is desirable or not Is a difficult question.
Now the third point, on which the ruling party leaders are in a chorus opposed to an interim government is that the EC could Instead be strengthened with more power and the voting system can also be changed.
The fear of losing power or the temptation of staying tn power are prompting them to take the present stand, which the JP leaders took in 1990. and dissuading them to accept the logic that only free and freS elections allowing the ordinary people to exercise their right of choice in electing public representative, can produce a meaningful ^nd effective democratic government. "
However, nope is opposed to further strengthening the EC and bringing improvement to the electoral system. But power alone can not make an institution Independent unless the system and the environment are such that, given such powers, the commission can
act Independently.
The same EC acted courageously and independently during the elections held in February 1991, because a nonpartisan interim government was in power.
The Election Commission has already a great amount of power, but we have seen it has not been able to exercise those powers with the BNP running the affairs of the state. We have seen the episode of Feni Paurasaya elections where voting was stopped because the ruling party candidate was losing in the polls. What happened during the time of Mir-pur by-elections is known to all. During the city corporation polls too. we have seen how the elections rules were violated by the ruling party activists and how the ministers used state-owned vehicles In day-light In the campaigns for their candidates. The Magura . experience is still fresh. The EC felt so helpless that Its chief had to leave hts place of duty in order to avoid an embarrassment both to himself and the Institution he represents. The over kill by hawks in the ruling party at Magura has only given an Indication of what can happen in the general elections under the present government, despite the power and Independence the
EC is supposed to be enjoying.
Did or could the EC even register a protest when two of-ficers-in-charge (OCs) were transferred at • the behest of the government a few days before the Magura polls? Was the EC able to take any actions against ministers who used government vehicles, distributed money or promised doles and donations during the election campaigns? The an-swer is — 'no'.'
After the Magura by-elections the Chief Election Commissioner made a public statement, by way of an order passed by him. stating that in centres where ninety to ninety five per cent votes were cast, the EC could not do anything as long as the presiding officer concerned had signed the result sheets from the respective polling centres. Such matters could .only be resolved, according to the EC. by the election tribunal. .
But the question Is that, every one knows it is impossible that ninety to ninety five per cent votes could be cast at a particular centre. Admittedly
there was rigging. But did the EC take any action against the presiding Officer when we know that all-government officials remain under the control and authority of the EC during the election period?
So the EC does not or can not function in an isolated manner from the office they have in Sher-E-Bangla Nagar of the city. It not only appears, but is also a common knowledge that it is not possible for the district and thana level official involved during the time of elections to act independently in the face of pressure from the local (pvel ruling party leaders and candidates.
So it is not the power, it is more the system and the environment which will not allow the EC and thousands of officials working down the line belonging to the mainstream administration under political control and influence to act independently so long a partisan government is In existence during the time of elections. It is thus more a question of trust and confidence of the people and the voters.
Our experiences since 1973, Including those of the recent past, have led our people to believe that an election Will be more free and fair under a neutral type of government having no political inter-
est than having one under a government with electoral political Interest. One should not underestimate the public opinion which is very much in favour of having general elections under a caretaker government. While all the opposition parties of the country are in favour of the interim government. we will have to assume that this is the view of the vast majority of the population. The ruling BNP secured only 31 per cent of the votes cast while 69 per cent went into the apposition and the entire opposition is now demanding the interim government.
-The government may have the legal majority in parliament to govern the country, but when it comes to the question of public opinion on an issue like this, the ■democratic norms and traditions have so far been to respect and respond to such an opinion. Judging by the sheer arithmetic of public opinion, it goes without saying that the demand for an interim government has turned into a national demand representing the vast majority of the population. The. interim government wil( be a very temporary arrangement performing the day-to-day functions of the government but primarily it will operate to ensure a free and fair election.
Moreover, the idea is not a new one. already we have had a precedent In our own country which has produced fruits : the existence of the present gov-ernment has come into being by virtue of an election held under an interim government In 1991. We have seen the same happening recently in Pakistan as well. It is not a question of whether a government is democratically elected or not. it is more a question of whether it will be better for the pebple or not to have an interim government for holding a gerieral election. Since the right to govern emanates from the confidence of the people and. the ruling party is so sure of its popularity, what then is the fear of resigning before the elections with a view to enabling the voters to make a free choice? I am sure, the ruling party will have the courage to do so and the sooner they show it. the better will be for them and for the nation.
If the issue can not be re* solved peacefully and constitutionally, it will be assumed by the people that the government has chosen a path of confrontation. which will make the existence of the government more vulnerable than ever before.
This piece has been prepared, on the basis of Barrister Moudud Ahmed’s deliberations, by our Senior Reporter Nurul Kabir