& 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

STRAIGHT LINE

The right to vote without fear

Insofar as the next general election is concerned, it is a matter of time to see how much of the utterances and threats of both the government and the major opposition, as mentioned before, is real policies and strategies, and how much is just posturing. Whatever be the eventuality, it is imperative to allay the fears of the citizens with regard to the anticipated violence and mismanagement during and before the upcoming general election.
POLITICAL thinkers are of the considered opinion that in terms of an hierarchy of constitutional rights, the right to vote should be placed at the top of the list because it concerns the right to full political participation or what has been termed "the physics of consent."
According to these thinkers, at the very centre of such human freedoms, the entitiement upon which the utility of the remaining liberties depend and which gives them added zest and meaning, is the right to vote. In saying so one would be pointing to a manifest example of a civil liberty. In fact, that is a key civil liberty which is realisable only through positive state action. Therefore, it follows that the right to vote cannot exist in the abstract. It requires a large state machinery to make it work.
The right to vote has been described as civil liberty as distinguished from other human rights because this right is a primary right that ensures political participation, and from this right flow additional rights. In other words, the rights of citizens are political rights that are exercised in community with others. Such rights facilitate participation which in turn nourish and sustain a democratic polity. In such a perspective, it is only proper that we venture to appreciate the concerns of our citizens about the exercise of the right to vote in the next general election.
In view of the above stipulations, what should genuinely worry concerned citizens of Bangladesh is the peaceful and fair holding of the next general election, because the major political parties of the country belonging to the opposition have demanded the revival of the caretaker government to oversee the general election, without which they would not participate in the election. The government in its initial response has almost rejected the opposition's demands, adding that the same may be discussed in parliament if the major opposition party stops its boycott of the law-making body. The opposition in turn has said that they would compel the government, through mass-movement, to accept
its demands.
The above positions definitely are not indicative of a positive election scenario, more so in the last year of a political government in Bangladesh where, if past experience is any guide, as the incumbent's tenure nears the end, it behaves in a precariously despotic and insensitive manner, with the opposition displaying fearsome desperation to achieve its goals. So when desperation and despotism counter each other, there is a reasonable possibility of unwanted clashes taking place. Inevitability of such a scenario is encouraged and strengthened by the pathetic lack of sensitiveness to the public good by our political parties.
Insofar as the next general election is concerned, it is a matter of time to see how much of the utterances and threats of both the government and
the major opposition, as mentioned before, is real policies and strategies, and how much is just posturing. Whatever be the eventuality, it is imperative need to allay the fears of the citizens with regard to the anticipated violence and mismanagement during and before the upcoming general election.
Looking back one may find that small level forgery, forcible closure of voting through muscle flexing by bullies of the party, voting by impersonation in some constituencies were resorted to by a section of the political party, particularly in the sensitive or remote areas of the country. By and large these did not attract serious attention as it most often did not significantly affect the national polls.
The situation, however, changed ominously as extra-constitutional rule descended on the body politic and the period from 1982 to 1988 saw some of the worst electoral malpractices that were legally punishable and morally reprehensible, to say the least. Sadly
for the nation, the public services of the country that included subordinate magistracy and the enforcement apparatus, amongst others, played a pathetically energised and ignominious role in the shameful stage-managed election at the behest of a malevolent autocrat. Expressions like "Media Coup" became known for the first time in our part of the world where, despite the economic adversity, the general population and the election managers could be proud of tolerably healthy electoral practices.
The fall of autocratic rule in December 1990 raised hopes about fair election but unfortunately the democratic aspirations got a rude jolt at the irregularities of the now lamented Magura by-election and the least participated February 1996 national polls. Continuous agitation and hartals by the then opposition
parties shortened the tenure of the government that followed the February 1996 election and the concept of a non-partisan and neutral caretaker government was accorded constitutional recognition. However, this arrangement has not been fully successful in assuaging the fears of a biased and rigged election.
The demand for restoration of caretaker government to oversee general election (now constitutionally struck off) is largely related to the issue of conduct of public servants during elections. All public servants entrusted with election duties come under the control and supervision of the Election Commission during a fixed period. That is the official position.
However, posting of loyal and pliable officials in key positions by the party government prior to relinquishing power has created administrative complications. In 2001, after the dissolution of government, thirteen secretaries to the government were transferred on the very first day the
caretaker chief assumed charge of office. Later on, there was large-scale transfer of deputy commissioners and superintendents of police of districts along with wholesale transfer of all officers-in-charge of the police stations of the country.
Whether such massive exercise, entailing huge expenditure of the public exchequer, was in the real interests of impartial conduction of national election has not been established beyond doubt. A particular political party continued to complain that officials hostile to them were deliberately posted to key positions and that such official acted in a very partisan manner during the election. Many such officials were allegedly rewarded with prize postings after election. Whatever be the merits of such officials, the allegations of the particular political party could not be brushed aside under the circumstances.
The key question, however, is the criteria of selecting and posting an impartial public official during election time. Officially, all public servants are regulation-bound to act in a neutral and non-partisan manner. The ground reality, however, is that officials appointed and posted by a particular party government are not considered trustworthy by the opposition. So what would be the scenario like during the next election? This issue would be very crucial because public servants in key positions have considerable influence on the election process.
It is a considered view that unless sufficient precautionary and remedial political and administrative actions are taken in time, the election scenario will remain fraught with grave threats to public peace. The major political parties have a do or die mentality in their preparation for the battle at the polls, which undoubtedly does not bode well of a democratic polity. For many, this looks like the last election of their lifetime. Unfortunately, leaders who have been thrust into positions of national responsibility are unable to look beyond their nose. The myopia of such elements disgraces the inherent goodness of our common folks, whose resilience and patience demand an enlightened management of the affairs of the state, including the election.
The writer is a columnist of The Dally Star.