Bangladesh politics was going down to the abyss and such politics was letting the nation as a whole down. The party constitutions have bestowed more power upon the single party chiefs than on the plural councilors. Whatever weak democracy has constitutionally been there in the parties has not been practiced at all.

For years and even decades together there were no council meetings of major political parties including the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), though the Jatiya Party (JP) claims to hold such meetings almost regularly. As regards council meetings, the leftist parties including the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and the rightist ones including the Jamaat were rather more democratic than the mid-line main-stream parties. So, political reform has long been a 'due' on the parties.

The disclosure of large scale corruption and nepotism of 'politi-

cians' after January 11 change in state governance, this 'due' has reached state of 'overdue'. The reorganised Election Commission (EC) has come up with some good proposals and enacted some rules for political reform. The interim government is also patronising (in some way or the other) some forms of reform.

Being driven by so many factors, the most popular three parties (AL, BNP and JP) have been bound to come up with some reform proposals separately. About two weeks ago, Mr. Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, the incumbent Secretary General of the BNP, first announced his plan of reforms in the party. He proposed drastic cut in the authority of the party chairperson.

The proposal says, a person will not be allowed to hold the post of the chairperson for more than two terms and one term will be of three years' duration. The provision will also be applicable to the person who has already served six years as chairperson. Mr. Bhuiyan disclosed his15-point reform plan at a press

briefing and the reform proposals need to be supported and executed by the party councilors in the next council meeting. The proposal added that the party chairperson would be barred from holding the office of the Prime Minister (PM). In less than a week, he realised that the same rule should be applicable to the Secretary General as well. So he amended the proposal accordingly.

The AL required more time to draft the reform proposals. So Begum Roushan Ershad stood second in coming up with reform proposals (in JP). The proposals seemed very like that proposed by Mr. Bhuiyan for BNP. By this time General Ershad has left chairmanship and 'appointed' Anisul Islam

Mahmud the party chief.

Four presidium members of the AL have drafted reform proposals for the party. But they are announcing the proposals individually saying that these are their mere personal proposals!

However, the proposals are not only similar to those first announced by Mr. Bhuiyan for BNP, but also seem almost identical to those announced by different presidium members of the AL. The AL proposal announced by Mr. Abdur Razzak has a specific item that says, “An individual cannot simultaneously hold a party and a governmental position. This rule will also apply to the party president and presidium members as well as the general secretary and other party secretar-

ies.”

If the reform proposals so far announced are passed in the council meetings, none of Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia or Ershad could be the party chief. But ironically each of them would have every chance to be the PM, the Leader of the Parliament (Jatiya Sangsad -JS) or the Opposition Leader in the JS!

So far I can understand, state power is exercised by the PM and both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have leading roles in enacting laws by the Parliament. If there is no bar on them in assuming those powerful positions, what will that matter if they are party chiefs or not? That is, the proposed reform will NOT be

effective as envisaged.

Now let us see the opposite side of the coin. Why they were made the party chiefs? Is it because they have been the most knowledgeable and expert politicians in the parties? The answer is, everybody knows they had to hold the posts of party chiefs to web the 'expert politicians' together so that the parties are not broken into pieces.

Has that need of symbolic unity in the parties ended? Is it right that true democracy can be established in our parties overnight? Can any magic formula hold 'expert politicians' together to respect anybody as the party chief? One can tell with almost absolute confidence that the 'No' to the symbols of unity in parties

will divide the parties into several pieces having so many brackets that somebody may try to fish in the troubled water!

But that somebody may also fail. Then what will happen? May be the result will be a total chaos in the political arena. Do we want that? Will that bring sanity in politics and prosperity to the nation?

I am sure the impractical proposal of saying no to them to head the parties will not be accepted by the councilors. The councilors live with the general mass and can feel the pulse of the people. Then what will happen to the reform proposals? The result would be no reform at all!

I emphasise on the need of keeping them in party chairmanship as long as the councilors elect them. But assuming the position of party chiefs, they became supreme in the parties and nobody questioned their upper hand in every affair of the party including who would lead the youth front or student front in a district or upazila or in a specific educational institution. Reforms within parties should aim at estab-

lishing the system of secret ballot in electing party leaders and in holding council meetings regularly.

Now I come to a legal point. Can the government enact rules supporting the impractical reform proposals? Who can head a party and for how long is the internal affair of a party. The government has no moral authority to enact rules defying the assumed support of the councilors. But the proposal of barring party chiefs from heading the government or from leading the Parliament can be supported by rules enacted by the government even if the party councilors do not like that. Who can head the government or lead the JS is the concern of all people, not only of the party councilors. So accepting only the proposal of barring the party chiefs from heading the government and from leading the JS will be enough and realistic for the greater benefit of the nation.

MAS Molla is a freelance contributor on social issues.