The Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) is a very well known think tank organization in Bangladesh. Under its auspices a seminar on “Political Parties and Democracy in Bangladesh was held sometime ago. Interestingly enough, it was participated by front rank leaders of the two main political parties as well as academics and intellectuals having a national stature.
The deceased Barrister Moudud Ahmed represented the main unofficial political party, BNP in it. He emphasized in his comments during the seminar that salvation of Bangladesh or its democracy depended mainly on holding an inclusive national elections. The implication of his comments is overriding all other factors the holding of another national elections including all the major political parties is the panacea for all the troubles Bangladesh faces at the moment.
Interestingly enough some Western countries are also of the same opinion : they also see the ability to successfully organize and hold such an election including the country’s main political parties as the key to mitigating all the woes this country faces at the moment.
But is this not a too simplistic solution extended for an otherwise complex problem ? Ever since the fall of the alleged autocratic governance of former President General Ershad in the late eighties, Bangladesh held such an election at least four times that led to four elected governments headed by the two main political parties taking over the governance of the country. But every time after holding such an election political stability gradually broke down to cause all kinds of sufferings to the country ; especially its economic march forward was severely disrupted by the lack of political stability. So, it would be wrong to either believe or to advise that this country’s turn around for the better in all respects and on a longer term basis essentially involves paving the ground for holding another national elections that can be credited as truly inclusive.
Indeed, the challenge is hardly the holding of such an election. The challenge really is deep cleansing or reforming the country’s political culture, the political institutions or the political parties, empowering and strengthening vital institutions which can function reasonably effectively as independent ones not burdened by the government’ control of them. Notably, all other speakers in the CPD seminar stressed on these factors except Barrister Moudud Ahmed. But then the reason for this is obvious. He was simply trying to promote a line of action that would facilitate the return of his party to power at the soonest that requires holding of such a national poll under his party’s terms and conditions.
However, as the other speakers highlighted in the seminar, the expectation of a return to normalcy and vitality in the nation’s existence will not be guaranteed till the factors they pointed to are addressed with an eye for a cure for good. Leaving these factors unaddressed and holding yet another so called inclusive election will mean returning to the base one of political uncertainty and the consequences thereof in the post election period.
The main political parties or forces got together and worked for the ouster of the alleged autocratic government of Ershad. Conspicuously, they signed an agreement between them after the fall of Ershad to establish genuine democracy in the country. To that end they took a vow through an open declaration in writing to work always for holding free and fair elections, to provide utmost media freedom, to abolish all laws seen as repugnant to basic human rights and the Constitution of Bangladesh. They made a commitment through that declaration to establish not the trappings of a democratic system but real democracy meaning effective separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary, recognized the importance of parliament as the apex democratic institution and, thus, to keep it functioning properly as it should be.
But what things the political parties or forces did every time on going to power from the nineties were seen as contrary to that declaration in both letters and spirit. The parties in the post Ershad period devised the safety valve of the caretaker government to hold elections impartially and through it to avoid charges of partisanship during the national elections and election rigging. But under both terms of the BNP in power after the fall of Ershad, attempts were clearly discernible that the government or the ruling party of the day tried to influence the formation of the caretaker government to be able to be in an advantageous position during the polling. Under the last government of the BNP charges were credibly made that the government influenced Election Commission was engaged in making lists of false voters. They would be used for voting in the national elections.
The opposition Awami League (AL) burst into a riotous mood over these and other issues on such perceived grounds of intention to rig elections and political stability was lost for a long time. After winning the elections with a massive mandate in 2009, the AL with its more than two thirds majority in parliament used that power to make null and void the system of forming a caretaker government to preside over national elections. Though the AL had a legal right to go for the constitutional amendment as it enjoyed an overwhelming majority in parliament, the move nonetheless gave birth to the notion that the party would utilize the opportunity to hold elections under an incumbent government to advance its objective of going to power afresh through manipulations. Thus, the BNP was given a major political issue and based on that it waged a movement the effects of which were traumatic for the country’s economy and national life to say the least.