& 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

Frayed and feared vs free and fair

PM's latest election formula fundamentally flawed

Mahfuz Anam
There are four elements to Sheikh Hasina's latest pronouncements on elections: 1) Elections within the tenure of the present parliament; 2) Parliament not to be dissolved during elections; 3) Present government to continue in power as interim. 4) A final no to a non-partisan election-time government system during elections.
As for elections within the tenure of the present parliament, we welcome it. It is the prerogative of the PM to decide when to call elections, obviously within its term. Any attempt to seek people's mandate, and if that be earlier rather than later, should be welcomed. And we do that.
The problem is with her second point of not dissolving the existing parliament before going for the new one. Within this system all sitting MPs will contest elections while holding their elected position. This obviously entitles them to special privileges and protocol. The government functionaries will naturally treat one candidate differently from the other. There are also questions of pay, perks and other facilities. It will be a case of paying MPs while they contest for their own reelection.
Above all, this provision militates against the cardinal principle of contesting elections in a democracy, that is, of all candidates being equal before the law, before the EC and fundamentally, before the voters. Candidates challenging the incumbents are at a natural disadvantage, which can have a significant impact on the outcome.
Finally, such a system does not exist in any other country practising parliamental democracy like India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the UK. In all these countries parliament is dissolved before fresh elections are called. Here the PM's claim that our elections will take place like any other country in the world that practises parliamentary democracy is simply not true.
So why should we adopt a system that other countries, in their collective wisdom, have not found acceptable?
As for point 3, Sheikh Hasina is right. In all democracies the incumbent government continues in an interim capacity, discharging the ordinary day to day business of government, while an all-powerful Election Commission presides over the elections. In all the countries that we mentioned earlier — India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and UK-- the incumbent governments continue in power while elections are held.
So why can't we be like other countries practising parliamentary democracy? Because:
1. In no other country does the opposition constantly boycott parliament. (Just imagine, today, we would have had a 22-year tradition of parliamentary opposition only if our opposition — belonging to both parties -- just did their duties inside the House, instead of creating havoc on the streets.)
2) In no other country the government tries to suppress and discredit the
opposition as we do. (Each time an opposition MP gets beaten up by the police, our democracy's image is hurt.
3) In no other country the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition abuse each other every time they refer to each other. Imagine, they have not had a single serious conversation about the country's problems in the last 23 years, while they have been leading us either as PM or as opposition leader.
4) In no other country bills proposed by the opposition never even get discussed, let alone passed.
5) In no other country the opposition finds nothing about the government, howsoever sound their policies can be, to praise, and vice versa.
6) In no other country the opposition vows to "topple" an elected government within months of an election.
7) . In no country the opposition calls hartals purposelessly, without the least concern for the economy, only to harass the government.
8) In no country the
statutory bodies, oversight institutions, bureaucracy, law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, etc., are used for political purposes by the ruling party as we do. The list can go on and on.
No caretaker government is an old stance of the PM and we have already called it a "mistake" in our editorial when it was first abolished by her. There is very little prospect of an acceptable election participated by all sides without it.
The most important reason is the existing 'trust deficit' between AL and BNP. If BNP was in power today and had abolished the caretaker system, giving the same reasons as given by the PM, would AL have participated in the polls? If the AL found K.M. Hasan as caretaker chief in the 2007 elections unacceptable because he belonged, years before, to BNP prior to becoming a judge, then is it realistic to expect BNP to accept AL party chief as the head of the government that will preside over the coming elections? How unrealistic can we get?
Given the hatred that
exists between the BNP and AL chiefs (and both of them have done everything possible to let the whole world know about it), it is nothing short of a pipe dream to expect Khaleda Zia to accept Sheikh Hasina's heading the interim government. We can talk, argue and debate till eternity but to expect a solution defies logic.
Given the above, the PM's latest stance as revealed during her talk with the secretaries is a sure recipe for political conflict, which must be avoided both for the sake of democracy and for the future of the country, which is being increasingly viewed as a destination for FDI, but will lose its attractiveness if violence become widespread.
We have no illusions that our comments will be considered with any seriousness, but we still write hoping, as hope springs eternal in our hearts, for some sanity at some point in time. Otherwise we are likely to have a frayed and feared election rather than a free and fair one.