UN Human Rights experts should intervene to stop en masse arbitrary arrest

Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

June 4 2008

The New Age, a national English daily in Bangladesh, reports today that  “(t)he government has so far detained about 12,000 people, including local leaders and activists of major political parties and local government representatives in a crackdown that began midnight past Friday (30 May 2008).”

Quoting the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Mr. Noor Mohammad, the country’s media reports that the police headquarters acknowledged the number of detainees were 10,054 until Tuesday (3 June 2008). Of them 1,729 persons were arrested within 24 hours since Sunday morning.

According to the media reports, the law-enforcing agencies dominated by the armed forces have launched this massive arrest and detention by abusing Section 15 (1) of the Special Power Act of 1974 and Rule 16 (2) of the Emergency Power Rules of 2007. It is also reported that the arrested persons are randomly charged with false cases.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is aware that Section 15 (1), one of the widely abused sections of the Special Power Act of 1974, allows the authorities to arrest people for committing “sabotage”. Since the proclamation of the State of Emergency on 11 January 2007 and the Emergency Power Rules of 2007 has been in effect, the law-enforcing agents like the police, controlled and dominated by the armed forces, have been randomly abusing Rule 16 (2) to arrest innocent persons and detain them arbitrarily.

The AHRC has been documenting these cases concerning human rights abuses in Bangladesh. The AHRC strongly condemns the ongoing arbitrary arrest of innocent persons and urges the authorities to release those who are arbitrarily held in detention. The AHRC also urges the international community including the concerned independent experts of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights at the UN to intervene in the current situation in Bangladesh. 
 

AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Police chief admits abuse of emergency laws

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)*

June 12, 2008

The Inspector General of the Bangladesh Police, Mr. Noor Mohammad, was widely cited in the national dailies on 10 June 2008 following his comments in a press briefing held at Police Headquarters on 9 June 2008 regarding the ongoing en masse arbitrary arrests in the country.

According to a report published in the Bhorer Kagoj, a vernacular daily, Mr. Noor said the police had been arresting an average of 1,667 persons every day as part of its regular operation to improve the country’s law and order situation prior to the upcoming elections in the country. The previous rate of daily arrests was 1,345.

The IGP was quoted, “suspects have been arrested under Rule 16(2) of the Emergency Powers Rules of 2007 instead of under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The detainees of Section 54 could have been granted bail easily if not any specific complaint against them could be found. So, we previously used detention orders (to obstruct bails from the Courts). Now because Rule 16(2) of the Emergency Powers Rules does not allow bail to anyone easily, there is no necessity of the 37-years-old practice of detention order.” He added that the current operation will be continued until 28 June. 

The IGP revealed a partial picture of the arrests in his statement. His statement also exposed the intrinsic attitudes and mindset of the police force, which is keen to keep people in detention manipulating laws like the emergency ordinance and rules. It is ultimately an admission by the police boss that there have been random abuses of the Emergency Powers Rules of 2007 since the state of emergency had been imposed. The statement also implies that the police arrest “suspects” most of whom do not have any specific charge against them and subsequently manage to get bail from the Courts, meaning that the arrests were made arbitrarily.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) urges the authorities of Bangladesh to stop the arbitrary arrest and detention of innocent persons without having a specific charge against them. The ongoing abuse of the Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 must be stopped immediately. The AHRC also urges the UN Human Rights Council and the concerned independent experts at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to consider the statement of the chief of the Bangladesh Police as an open admission of the violation of basic norms of fundamental rights and intervene into the situation.   

*AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Chief adviser wrongly reads ground realities

Editorial, NewAge, November 16, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

We are extremely disappointed with the latest comment of the chief adviser to the military-driven interim government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, that he feels the common people are not facing any problems as a result of the continuation of the current state of emergency. It is absolutely unacceptable that a head of government could even suggest that the continuation of a state of emergency – and thereby the continuation of the automatic suspension of people’s fundamental rights – does not cause problems for the ‘common people.’ Such a comment proves once again that this government, like all unelected and apolitical regimes, is neither aware of the realities on the ground nor has the necessary contact with the general masses.

We have tried to impress upon the government time and again that the suspension of the people’s fundamental rights runs counter to its stated aims of positively transforming the nature of politics and strengthening democracy. Democracy requires the perpetual political participation of the people, within certain legal boundaries of course, for them to be able to demand and fight for their rights and aspirations. Suspending the people’s right to think, speak and express freely or their right to assemble and protest is, therefore, extremely problematic, regardless of what the chief adviser might have us believe.

The continuation of a state of emergency is, however, conducive to the spread of fear in society, which we feel this government has managed to do rather successfully. Even though maintaining law and order and ensuring stability is the responsibility of any government, the current government, through the adoption of the draconian emergency power rules that have made usually bailable cases non-bailable, seems to have attempted to frighten the public into compliance. Such is the pervasive sense of fear that the government’s unsolicited intervention in politics, its failure to rein in the prices of essential items or its inability to sort out the fertiliser crisis, for example, has gone largely un-protested by the people. It is also not surprising that the economy is suffering during this emergency period with investment levels dwindling and inflation going through the roof. We have pointed out countless times before that emergency discourages investment, as it indicates to potential investors locally and overseas that an abnormal and unstable situation is prevailing in the country. The lack of investment today can only mean that fewer jobs will be created in the future, which will affect the common people that the chief adviser has referred to.

While we can go on and on about the negative impacts of emergency on society – economic, political and cultural – we cannot find any good reason for persisting with such an arrangement any longer. If a state of emergency was indeed necessary in January to avoid a bloody confrontation between the two warring political alliances and to bring back political stability, it has been achieved long ago. It is high time that the government lifted emergency and returned to the people their democratic and political rights so that the country can move forward in its struggle to bring qualitative change in the nature of politics and to give democracy proper footing. If the military-driven government and its chief adviser really believe emergency rule does not cause problems for common people and cannot appreciate the need for the immediate lifting of the state of emergency, we, unfortunately, cannot but feel that our democracy is no longer safe in their hands.

Time for govt, Election Commission to pause and ponder

Editorial, NewAge, November 15, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

The legal notice, issued by the detained BNP chairperson, Khaleda Zia, to the Election Commission, asking for withdrawal of its invitation to M Hafiz Uddin Ahmed, who was appointed acting secretary general at an eminently controversial meeting of the BNP standing committee, which also made Saifur Rahman the acting chairman, effectively nullifies the effort by the Saifur-Hafiz faction to create the impression that it enjoys Khaleda’s blessings and is, therefore, the mainstream BNP. The notice, endorses as it does Khandaker Delwar Hossain’s claim that he has Khaleda’s support, also poses a legitimacy crisis for the Saifur-Hafiz faction in the public in general and the party’s rank and file in particular. Crucially still, the faction stands exposed in the public eye as a part, if not a product, of the military-driven interim government’s scheme to politically neutralise Khaleda.

Alarmingly, however, neither the government nor the Saifur-Hafiz faction appears daunted by such a decisive turn of event. The faction has already been afforded the right to use the BNP central office, which it exercised gleefully on Wednesday, albeit in the presence of an elaborate security blanket provided by the state’s law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. The security blanket did avert a showdown between the followers of the government-orchestrated and the Khaleda-backed factions of the BNP for the time being, although clashes between the two groups still remain a distinct possibility.

Overall, and we note this with grave concern, the interim government is following to the letter the script, developed and enacted by authoritarian regimes during military rules in the country, of imposing pliant leadership on one major political party or the other, in an effort to reconstructing the political order. History tells us that such attempts never succeed but take a huge toll on the political process nonetheless. Moreover, the government’s persistence with such a detrimental political project runs counter to the pledge it made upon its assumption of office in January to create a level playing field for the political establishments in the run-up to the general elections and will further erode whatever faith the public still has in it. Consequently, all its actions and inactions will remain questionable.

The Election Commission has, meanwhile, made the situation even more complicated by becoming party to the political crime that is being perpetrated. We have already indicated in these columns that the chief election commissioner may have inexorably damaged his and the commission’s credibility by first inviting Hafiz to the reforms dialogue and then unabashedly defending the decision. On top of it, comes the decision to take legal recourse to Khaleda’s notice, which would no doubt put the entire electoral process into question. Thus far, the commission has, through a series of questionable actions, appeared to be toeing the line of the government, which is contrary to the people’s expectations for it to be independent.

In the final analysis, the interim government seems to have put the country in a greater political and legal mess than it was in prior to January 11. The government can still get the country back from the brink of sustained political uncertainty by moving away from its political projects. The Election Commission, on the other hand, should rethink its position and play a proactive role so that the political parties can be democratised under their existing leadership.

Direct democracy: challenges for Bangladesh

NewAge, November

Bangladesh is at a critical crossroads in its democratic journey. Top-down reforms imposed, without the participation of the people or their elected representatives, by a military-backed government, which intimidates those it deems to be contrary to the national interest and has scant respect for the due process of law, are unlikely to deliver an improved democracy, writes Adilur Rahman Khan*

EVER since a military-backed government came to power in Bangladesh, on January 11, 2007, the authority of the constitution has faced a number of challenges. The extent to which the current regime is able to identify those challenges and how it responds to them will dictate the course of democracy in Bangladesh.

Background
In an attempt to ensure that parliamentary elections are held free, fair and without undue influence from the incumbent party-political power, Bangladesh, which returned to democracy in 1991, has a system for transition of power from an elected party-political government to a non-party-political, independent, caretaker government shortly before the elections are due to be held. According to article 123(3) of the constitution, ‘A general election of members of Parliament shall be held within ninety days after Parliament is dissolved, whether by reason of the expiration of its term or otherwise than by reason of such expiration.’ The last elected regime, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, handed over power to a caretaker government on October 28, 2006. For the first time, the caretaker government was headed by the president, Iajuddin Ahmed (who was president during the BNP-led regime), as the two major political parties, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Bangladesh Awami League, were unable to reach a consensus on the appointment of a former chief justice as head of the caretaker government.

However, the Awami League soon alleged that the Iajuddin-led administration was neither neutral nor entirely independent of the influence of the BNP-led alliance, and that it would not facilitate fair elections. Subsequently, the party announced that it would boycott the polls, scheduled to take place on January 22, 2007. The AL and BNP supporters launched a series of confrontational street protests, which became increasingly violent, prompting the army to step in, seemingly with the support of some development partners and a section of ‘civil society.’ A new ‘caretaker’ government, backed by the army, took over on January 11. Iajuddin was removed from the position of head of the caretaker government but retained as the head of state and an indefinite state of emergency was declared, suspending fundamental rights and freedoms – including the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce human rights.

The government declared that it had multiple mandates granted to it by popular support, including the holding of parliamentary elections – not within the 90 days dictated by the constitution but after completing a fresh voters’ roll. The head of the government, former Bangladesh Bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, announced that the administration planned to prepare a new electoral roll to put the possibility of any controversy over vote rigging to rest. In addition, it announced that free and fair elections would not be possible until rampant corruption was tackled. The principle targets in the drive against corruption would be politicians and party activists suspected of illegal activities and their businessmen cohorts. The institutions that would tackle corruption such as the Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission were reorganised and retired or in-service army officers were installed to run those.

The current situation
Several months into the tenure of the Fakhruddin-led government, the Election Commission unveiled a roadmap for elections, which are supposed to take place before December 2008. There are serious obstacles in place. While launching its so-called anti-corruption drive, the government said democracy would not be possible while there was corruption within the political parties. Along with many senior staff, the top leaders of the BNP and the Awami League were accused of corruption and arrested; they remain in detention awaiting trial. Despite their detention, both remain extremely popular among the people. With a view to eliminating the influence of political leaders who were mired in a culture of corruption, the government has undertaken a series of reforms, both overt and covert, to minimise the influence of the political parties’ ruling cliques.

With plans to create a entirely new voter list in a predominately rural country of 150 million people; arrest, try and punish corruption suspects; begin institutional reforms – including reforms in the political parties and the separation of the judiciary from the executive; improve law and order through an anti-crime drive; and hold local and national elections all before the end of 2008, the government has a long way to go in very little time.

Trials of corruption suspects have not met international standards guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the administration has been accused of selectively choosing which corruption suspects to bring to trial based, not on the strength of evidence or severity of alleged crime, but on political expediency. This has created uncertainly among businesspeople, which, in turn, has led to a severe downturn in the economy. During the ten months or so that the government has been in power, extrajudicial killings by law enforcement agencies – common under the elected regimes – has continued; 162 people have reportedly been extra-judicially killed during the state of emergency. Furthermore, human rights defenders – including Odhikar’s acting director – have been intimidated by the intelligence agencies of the state. Torture of people detained on police remand continues.

The print and electronic media in Bangladesh, which has a reputation of freedom and impartiality, has been under significant pressure from the state to refrain from reporting news or comments critical of the government. Journalists report being regularly ‘reminded’, usually by telephone calls, that if they publish news critical of the government they may face negative consequences. This has reportedly led to a significant level of self-censorship by the media – a restriction on the freedom of expression. During the nationwide curfew in August 2007, journalists were assaulted, beaten up and injured by the security forces. Additionally, the government declared that it had the power to ban or attach conditions on broadcasting so-called ‘provocative news,’ documentaries, talk-shows and discussions critical of the government under powers given to it by article 5 of the Emergency Powers Rules 2007.

The government has also used the Emergency Powers Rules 2007 to quell protests by jute mill workers who have recently been made redundant and farmers who have demanded the distribution of fertiliser.

Under pressure to deliver results, supposedly independent agencies, such as the Election Commission, have taken decisions that are seen to be based more on conforming to the plans of the regime rather than adhering strictly to the due process of the law.

All the while, the state of emergency has outlawed public protest. Nevertheless, there have been sporadic demonstrations. In August, a seemingly small altercation between a student and a soldier on the campus of Dhaka University led to a rally and calls for an apology from the army and the government and for the army’s temporary camp to be removed from the university campus. The army quickly dismantled the camp and an apology was issued, but the students did not stop there. Rather, they began to demand the withdrawal of the state of emergency and for early elections. The demonstration spread to other university campuses throughout the country. Other groups, disaffected with the government’s policies – street hawkers and factory workers – joined the protests. The government responded with repression. Following three days of protest, it declared an indefinite, nationwide curfew. The media, already under pressure not to be critical of the authorities, was explicitly told not to broadcast ‘anti-government’ news. Television news channels were taken off the air, mobile phone signals were cut and, at the same time, it was not possible to access the internet. The authorities filed cases against 82,000 unnamed protesters. Students and university teachers were arrested and charged with breaching provisions of the Emergency Powers Rules 2007. Some remain in detention having been arrested, without warrants, from their homes in mid-night raids.

In such an environment concerns have been growing about who is controlling the levers of power within the administration. There are increasing reports of the military intelligence agency playing a progressively more influential role in decision making and policy implementation.

The one national institution that the military-government has not attempted to reform, an institution critical to good democracy, is the parliament – which has remained suspended since October 2006. Rather than investing time and resources to strengthen the parliament and parliamentarians, so that the representatives of the people can work towards a corruption-free society in the long term, the government has converted buildings within the parliamentary compound into sub-jails to hold high-profile, political corruption suspects.

The role of holding the government to account during this difficult time may then have been legitimately expected to fall to journalists. However, as mentioned, the government has tightened restrictions on news and journalists work in a climate of fear – constantly walking the tightrope between professional reporting and facing the wrath of the authorities. Intimidating telephone calls from intelligence agencies especially after controversial events mean that self-censorship is rife.

Civil society has divided into two broad camps. One group typically composed of people working in development organisations and backed by much of the international community, support this regime as they feel that, despite its faults, the military-backed government will deliver on promises to hold an election and ultimately bring good results for the country. The other group includes people from the human rights movement, academics and some journalists. They feel that the present government has gone beyond its constitutional mandate and is acting illegally – suppressing the fundamental rights of the people, pressurising the judiciary and controlling the media.

Challenges
The risk remains that the government will not be able to deliver on its promises. In tackling corruption by punishing a small number of high-profile political suspects, the work to eradicate corrupt practices in Bangladesh may prove unsustainable in the medium and long term. The government has often approached institutional improvements by replacing the head of some organisations and branding that as ‘reforms.’ At times, such as in the case of reforms in the Dhaka City Corporation, this has been imposed by sending in soldiers. Short of arresting local government chairmen and mayors suspected of corruption, the administration has not invested in improvements at the local democratic level. As changes have been enforced by a military-backed government without engaging people in debate, discussion or decision making, it seems likely that the reforms are bound to fail when the state of emergency is removed.

Lifting the state of emergency itself will, therefore, prove to be a significant challenge to this regime. It will depend on two keys things: holding free, fair, participatory elections and ensuring that the elected government that follows will affirm the decisions of the current regime. The first of these is under threat on two fronts.

Preparing a new voter roll is a massive task that may not be achievable within the timeframe that the government has set for itself; without the new voter list credible elections are unlikely. Secondly, if the political parties believe they are not being genuinely represented in the elections – either because their leadership is in jail or because the Election Commission has been negotiating with a party faction that does not speak for the mainstream – they may choose to boycott elections, returning the country to a position similar to the one that the army stepped in to manage in January 2007.

As for affirming decisions taken by the government, especially decisions taken under emergency powers legislation, the ruling administration has a vested interest to ensure a group sympathetic to their actions takes over the reigns of power. The environment is, therefore, ripe for democratic rights to be further undermined.

Conclusion
Bangladesh is at a critical crossroads in its democratic journey. Top-down reforms imposed, without the participation of the people or their elected representatives, by a government, which uses fear to intimidate those it deems to be contrary to the national interest and has scant respect for the due process of law, are unlikely to deliver an improved democracy.

The government should lift the state of emergency and begin engaging the people in the changes that will be required to move beyond a political system characterised by corruption. The Election Commission should seek permission from the Supreme Court to hold elections after ninety days under article 106 of the constitution of Bangladesh, to hold parliamentary elections for the restoration of democracy in Bangladesh.

*Adilur Rahman Khan is secretary of the human rights coalition Odhikar.

Lift restrictions on politics instead of tightening them

Editorial: NewAge, November 11, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

We note with concern the latest instruction of the military-driven interim government to the law enforcement agencies to ensure stricter adherence to the conditions on indoor politics under the state of emergency. The order, which came a day after activists of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party assaulted several ‘reformist’ leaders of the party including standing committee member and former army chief Mahbubur Rahman, was given at the twelfth meeting of the cabinet committee on law and order on Thursday.

We at New Age have repeatedly and unequivocally demanded, from the very beginning of this period of emergency, the full restoration of the fundamental rights of the people as well as the complete lifting of the ban on political activity, indoors and outdoors. While we certainly do not wish to see a return to the crude power struggle between the different groups of self-seeking political parties, we have held firm in our belief that the people of this country should not, even for a fleeting moment let alone for months on end, be deprived of their fundamental rights as citizens of a sovereign state. Similarly, while we have relentlessly opposed the bloody, confrontational politics of the past as had been practiced by our political parties and do not want to see our country being dragged down that tortuous route ever again, we do not believe and can never support the suspension of the democratic process and the ban on political activity, however temporary either may be. To put it simply, we do not subscribe to the idea that democracy can be strengthened through keeping it suspended, or that the nature of politics can be positively transformed through banning it altogether in an effort to remould the polity. In our opinion, the democratisation of the state and society requires an unfailing commitment to democratic values and ideals, which cannot and should not be compromised even under the most difficult of circumstances. After all, real democracy is dependent upon a political process that allows the people the opportunity and space to voice, demand, and fight for their individual and collective aspirations.

Therefore, we cannot help but feel alarmed by the fact that at a time when we had expected that the military-driven government would further relax the restrictions on political activity, it has asked the law enforcement agencies to step up their vigil and tighten their noose around the political parties. We are made increasingly anxious by the fact that instead of allowing the people their necessary democratic space, the government is persisting with the state of emergency that automatically suspends their democratic rights. We are disappointed that despite our repeated demands for the earliest return to a democratic dispensation, the government appears to be taking its sweet time to bring about necessary administrative and electoral reforms and are thereby delaying, without any good reason, elections to the ninth parliament, which have been stalled since January last.

We take this opportunity to remind the government that it is pledge-bound to the people of this country, as well as the international community, to restore the democratic process. Therefore, we urge it, once more, to immediately restore the fundamental rights of the citizens, lift completely the ban on politics and to bring about necessary electoral reforms to hold parliamentary elections without unnecessary delay.

162 extra-judicial deaths in last 300 days: Odhikar

Staff Correspondent, NewAge, November 9, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

The number of extra-judicial killings in the country has risen to 162 in the 300 days since the declaration of the ongoing state of emergency on January 11 to November 7, said Odhikar, a human rights organisation, on Thursday.

In the last 30 days till Monday, nine people were killed extra-judicially by the law enforcers, according to the report released by Odhikar on the state of human rights in Bangladesh.

Of the 162 slain people, the Rapid Action Battalion killed 81, the police 57, RAB and the police jointly three, the army-led joint forces seven, the army seven, the navy three, the jail police one, the Department of Narcotics Control one, the Coast Guard one and the Bangladesh Rifles one, said the report.

Of the deceased, 111 people were killed in so-called crossfire, 26 were tortured to death, 14 were shot dead, and the remaining 11 were killed in other circumstances, the report added.

The report also mentioned that the police initiated an inquiry into the death of Morshed Rana, who died at Narsingdi model police station on October 28. This is the sole example of an inquiry into an extra-judicial death after emergency was imposed.

‘Disregard for the due process of law and the selective application of the laws are violations of the people’s human rights. There is serious and widespread cause for concern that the actions of this government in many aspects of policy — prosecution and judicial process, judicial inquiries and the impunity of law enforcement agencies — are dictated less and less by the law,’ said Odhikar in the report.

The report said the controversial decision of the Election Commission to send an invitation for dialogue to the Saifur Rahman-led BNP faction has led sections of the media to question its neutrality.

Odhikar urged the EC to work independently, without being unduly influenced by the government or any other quarter.

The print and electronic media, which have a reputation for freedom and impartiality, have been under significant pressure from the government to refrain from reporting news or comments that are critical of it, said the report.

In the 300 days of the emergency, the authorities have conducted several eviction drives against unauthorised constructions, buildings and habitations, without making provisions for the resettlement of the displaced poor people, said the report.

Arresting university teachers in August without warrants, holding them incommunicado for nearly 40 hours at an unknown location before being brought to a court, violating the constitution and detaining them in the Joint Interrogation Cell, have caused concern that their rights under national and international laws are not being respected by the authorities, and the due process of law is not being followed, the report mentioned.

Throughout the 300 days of the emergency, many workers of jute mills and garment factories have protested while demanding full payment of the wages to which they are entitled. Many of these workers have been arrested for violating the state of emergency, the report said.

Govt back on ‘minus-two’ track

Editorial, NewAge, November 1, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

Several members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s standing committee, including expelled former secretary general Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, met late Monday night and elected former finance minister M Saifur Rahman the party’s acting chairperson and former commerce minister Hafiz Uddin Ahmed the acting secretary general. Khandaker Delwar Hossain, who did not attend the meeting, was relieved of his responsibilities as secretary general considering ‘the existing political situation and his health condition,’ according to Saifur. Although the committee did not reinstate Mannan Bhuiyan as secretary general, it did not approve his expulsion either. That the meeting was orchestrated is made obvious by reports that several members of the committee, who had until Monday night intentionally kept their distance from the ‘reformist’ faction of the party, were accompanied to the meeting by members of the intelligence agencies. Also, Delwar’s statement on Tuesday that he had received death threats from a certain quarter trying to force him to attend the meeting suggests that not all had attended the meeting on their own volition and that the decisions taken may not reflect the true will of the majority of the BNP’s highest policymaking body.

It is also curious that Delwar was relieved of his duties on grounds of ill health when Saifur’s health has been much worse of late and prompted him, only some weeks ago, to announce his retirement from politics. While Saifur and Hafiz have both claimed that the decisions taken by the committee are aimed at keeping the party united, the meeting itself came in the backdrop of separate attempts by different factions of the BNP to unite, which reportedly enjoyed the consent of the party’s chairperson. It seems, therefore, that the meeting on Monday was hurriedly organised and carried out by certain quarters to subvert the attempts by the opposing factions of the party to unite under the leadership of Khaleda Zia.

While we are for an end to the iconoclastic politics practised in the subcontinent, we must nevertheless point out that this will remain a reality in our country until society is further enlightened, both politically and culturally. Therefore, the decisions taken at the meeting will only be acceptable and the committee itself under the new acting chairperson and secretary general will only be considered as the mainstream BNP by the party’s rank and file if Khaleda gives her consent to the changes brought about, and not otherwise. We, however, do not believe that the ‘midnight coup’ carried out on Monday has yet received Khaleda’s seal of approval, given the statement of Delwar, her trusted deputy, that the meeting itself is not in line with the BNP’s constitution as only the chairperson can call a meeting of the standing committee.

The meeting, we believe, represents nothing more than the latest manifestation of the military-driven interim government’s ‘minus-two’ scheme. While that scheme is not new in any way, we do have reason to believe that the Election Commission may have gotten entangled in it this time around, given that an election commissioner, Sohul Hossain, said, earlier on Monday, certain issues were going to be solved within the BNP so that the commission would not have to choose which faction to invite to talks, as if he were already aware of what was to take place that night. We view this as being very ominous for the future of democracy in our country as this will undoubtedly lead to the loss of credibility of the commission. Therefore, we urge the commission not to become party to any political scheme of the government and ask the government once again to abandon its attempts to restructure the political order and focus instead on bringing about electoral and administrative reforms.

A year on, no closer to democracy

NewAge, October 30, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

If the government is really committed to the democratic process, it must refocus its energies on bringing about real administrative and electoral reforms and exit the stage as early as possible. The longer it stays on to try to carve itself a convenient exit strategy, the more complicated will become the transition itself and more uncertain will become our country’s future, writes Shameran Abed

A FULL year has now passed since the last elected government left office in late October 2006, a year that has been arguably the most politically significant in our country’s history since the twelve months that began with the adoption of the fourth amendment to the constitution in early 1975 leading to the creation of BAKSAL. The year that followed that event over three decades ago saw the declaration of a state of emergency by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the subsequent brutal assassination of Mujib along with members of his family by a section of the army, the short tenure of Khandaker Moshtaque Ahmed, the jail killings of four national leaders also by members of the armed forces, and ultimately the formation of the first martial law regime of the independent Bangladesh. There have been years since that have witnessed events of great political significance – the year that began with the assassination of General Zia in 1981 and culminated in the usurpation of power by General Ershad the following year and the year following the ouster of the autocratic regime of General Ershad in late 1990 that saw the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1991, to mention a couple. This last year, like those years of the past, symbolises a political turning point for Bangladesh, even though the direction in which this nation will now proceed as a result of the ongoing political reorientation is yet uncertain.

The last few days of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led alliance government’s tenure, marked as they were by unprecedented political violence and bloodshed, should have been warning enough for the unsuspecting public that a quick and peaceful transition to the next elected government was not likely. The row over who will head the caretaker government and the subsequent confusion, both legal and political, left the door ajar for the BNP to place its trusted Iajuddin Ahmed at the helm of the caretaker administration, the primary responsibility of which was to undo the electoral machinations of the BNP-led alliance government. By this point, any chance of a systematic transition following free, fair and credible elections had already evaporated into the air. Yet, the Iajuddin government was given the benefit of the doubt, not only by the people at large but also, and more importantly, by the Awami League, lest the man confounded his critics by levelling the electoral playing field and helping the Election Commission to hold general elections that would be contested by all major political parties and be acceptable to all. That was not to be.

The president-cum-chief adviser stuck very loyally to his script, becoming, for all intents and purposes, an extension in government of the party that put him in office. His actions and that of his government pushed the country towards a period of sustained political confrontation with many predicting a civil war between the feuding political alliances. Such a situation was avoided by the military intervention of January 11 which ousted the caretaker regime of Iajuddin, forced him to declare a state of emergency and to form a new interim government under Fakhruddin Ahmed. The people, fed up as they were with the senseless political violence and the shutdowns that continuously disrupted their lives and anxious about the violence that was to come, breathed a sigh of relief and welcomed the new interim government, even though a state of emergency was now in effect that suspended their fundamental rights.

The instant calm that followed was only the calm before the storm. Having wrested power away from the self-serving political parties that have governed our country in the past decade and a half, the military-driven interim government went on overdrive, promising a whole range of administrative and electoral reforms as it gave itself an open-ended invitation to rule. The government told us that it would root out corruption and misuse of power, contain crime, bring qualitative change in the nature of politics, ensure the rule of law, separate the judiciary from the executive, empower the Election Commission and strengthen democracy. It also began in earnest, arresting high-profile politicians and businessmen on allegations of corruption, breaking down illegal structures and evicting hawkers from the footpaths of Dhaka city. It also reconstituted the Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Public Service Commission and took necessary action to give final effect to the long-awaited separation of the judiciary from the executive. The early actions of the government consolidated the public support it had enjoyed immediately following its formation.

However, like all unelected governments, this military-driven government began to lose its way as soon as it shifted its focus from bringing about real administrative and electoral reforms to interfering in and trying to manipulate the political order. A government that continuously preached the democratisation of state and society ought to have realised that real democratisation would only occur when the people would be able to assert their rights under a democratic framework, which in turn would require the democratic institutions of the state to be properly functional. Yet, instead of fixing the rules of the game, the government’s efforts switched to manipulating the game itself. Instead of first bringing about necessary changes to electoral laws to make registration of political parties with the Election Commission mandatory for contesting in elections and regular leadership elections within parties mandatory for registration, the government embarked on an ill-conceived ‘minus-two’ scheme to liquidate the political careers of two former prime ministers, BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia and Awami League president Sheikh Hasina. The paradox in a government preaching the democratisation of the political parties on the one hand and trying to force out the top leaders of the two biggest parties by sending them into exile on the other was not lost on the public.

Once the efforts to send Khaleda and Hasina into exile failed, the government tried to take them out of the political equation by promoting factions within the parties that worked to change their leadership in the name of bringing about intra-part reforms. This, of course, led to further complications. On the one hand, the perceived use by the government of its anti-corruption drive as a tool to compel politicians in both parties to revolt against their leaders eroded the credibility of the anti-corruption drive itself, as the people wondered why certain politicians were hauled off to jail along with ailing wives and teenaged daughters while others, perceived to be as corrupt, if not more, were allowed to do politics at a time when all political activity was banned. On the other hand, the government’s efforts to impose ‘reforms’ on the parties from outside called into question its true intentions, as such an approach could not and would not ever lead to the real democratisation of the parties, if that is really what the government was after in the first place.

Once efforts to oust the two leaders by fuelling mutinies within their parties also proved futile, the government put both leaders in jail following highly dramatic late-night arrests on charges of corruption. However, instead of the decapitation of the two parties making it easier for the government to impose democratic reforms within the parties, as is apparently its intention, the arrests of the two leaders have only made the position of the ‘reformist’ sections of the parties weaker as the majority of the rank and file of the two parties have rallied around their beleaguered leaders.

If the interim government was really intent upon bringing about positive change in the nature of politics by making the political parties more democratic internally and behave more democratically in respect to each other, it has gone about its task very poorly. Instead of compelling the parties to alter their style through reforming the political and electoral process, the government has pushed them into a corner through the overenthusiastic and at times arbitrary use of its anti-corruption crusade and forced them to fight back.

On the other hand, if the government is actually looking for an exit route through bringing to power a political party that will consequently ratify its actions and give constitutional and legal legitimacy to the changes brought about by it, the government is no further along that path, if not a few steps back, than where it had been at the start of its tenure. Had the government taken the more measured and sustainable approach of restricting its activities to reforming the system and processes and allowing for political change to take place on its own as a result of its reforms, it would not have currently found itself in the midst of a political and constitutional mess. Had the government led by example in proving its commitment to the rule of law through strict adherence to due process in all of its activities, including the anti-corruption drive, instead of circumventing the due process wherever possible in its zeal to give exemplary punishment, the government’s position would not have become as untenable as it is now.

As far as governance in concerned, this government’s biggest folly has been in thinking that all problems can be solved through the use of force and by spreading fear. Whether it is in curbing corruption, maintaining law and order, containing tax evasion, keeping prices under control, controlling the flood and post-flood situation, preparing a fresh voters’ roll, stopping drug use or for any other issue thus far faced by this government, it has viewed everything from a purely law and order perspective and the answer has invariably been the use of one or several of our paramilitary or armed forces to scare people into compliance. The army, the BDR or the joint forces together have been arresting the corrupt, patrolling the streets, going through people’s tax files, monitoring prices at the city markets, distributing relief and preparing the voter’s database among other additional tasks and responsibilities.

A country, however, cannot be governed through fear-mongering. Whereas the political stability brought about by this government ought to have spurred investment and given a new dynamism to the economy, investment levels are dwindling with fears of a slowdown in the economy. Yet, faced with a problem that cannot in any way or form be reversed through the use of the joint forces, this government is unsurprisingly at a desperate loss for answers. Such pervasive fear has this government instilled in the people that it now feels the need to establish a truth commission through which it hopes to pardon businessmen for their past crimes so that they can go back to doing business and get the economy moving again.

In trying to find answers to the myriad of political and governance problems faced by this government, its initial enthusiasm for bringing about electoral and administrative reforms has all but gone away. The Election Commission, though reconstituted by this government, is still under the chief executive’s office and has not been given full administrative and financial autonomy. The problems inherent in our system – the administrative tangles and bottlenecks that facilitate corruption and other irregularities, the lack of transparency in government, poor checks and balances between the institutions of the state – have not been addressed. Most unfortunately, on the eve of the separation of the judiciary, the government has compromised separation itself in the face of pressure from the administration by giving judicial powers to administrative magistrates.

As things stand today, one year on from the time the last elected government left office, the country’s democratic credentials have only gotten weaker, and not taken firmer roots, thanks to the complete loss of focus of the current government. The problem stems from the fact that the government sees neither its tenure nor its role as being one defined by the constitution. Although the government continues to call itself a ‘caretaker government’ by dint of being sworn in under article 58, it has not only refused to restrict its actions within the confines of article 58, but has given itself, with no popular mandate whatsoever, an open-ended agenda. At the urging of certain quarters, which were worried that the people might start to feel anxious if the government does not limit its time, the government, through the Election Commission, has brought out an electoral ‘roadmap’ that gives it till the end of next year to hold parliamentary elections. However, given that truly free and fair elections leading to the return to power of the BNP or the Awami League, which are inevitable in the present political context of Bangladesh, are contrary to the interests of this government, at least as far as a dignified exit from the scene is concerned, doubts linger about whether free and fair elections will be held, that is if parliamentary elections are held at all.

As the government reflects over the events of the last year, and especially of its time in office since January, one can only hope that it will realise that its actions have pushed the country towards greater uncertainty rather than bringing it closer to its democratic and constitutional moorings. It isn’t that the government has not done anything right but that it has got its priorities mostly wrong in its haste to do everything during its tenure. Fighting corruption, like America’s war on terror, will be an ongoing struggle as long as Bangladesh exists as a nation-state, and cannot be won by an unelected interim government, no matter how long it holds on to power. Similarly, real political change will come only when the democratic institutions are allowed to function properly, not under duress and through fear of a military-driven government. As a matter of fact, spreading fear through prolonging a state of emergency and keepings people’s fundamental rights suspended are totally contrary to the democratisation of the state and society. Therefore, if the government is really committed to the democratic process, it must refocus its energies on bringing about real administrative and electoral reforms and exit the stage as early as possible. The longer it stays on to try to carve itself a convenient exit strategy, the more complicated will become the transition itself and more uncertain will become our country’s future.

Elections, emergency mutually exclusive

Editorial, NewAge, October 4, 2007

The election commissioners, and particularly the chief election commissioner, have stated time and again that they are committed to bringing about necessary electoral reforms to make the electoral process free and fair. The commission has also recently initiated a series of dialogues with the political parties on its proposed electoral reforms. However, up until now, we have not seen any real work by the commissioners to strengthen the Election Commission, which, we believe, requires greater power, authority and logistics to hold proper elections. A report in New Age on Wednesday says the government has decided to purchase 150 jeeps for upazila nirbahi officers this fiscal year, but no such purchase is being made for the commission officials at the district or upazila levels. This indicates to us that the government will continue to control local officials of the commission even at the time of elections and, therefore, it is the administration that will once again preside over the elections at the constituencies and not the commission. This is indeed unfortunate, as genuine reforms in the electoral process require that the commission is made more powerful than the administration with regard to elections and that the civil administration at the local levels are brought under the control of the commission officials during the elections.

We are also disappointed with the conflicting comments of the chief election commissioner about the continuation of the state of emergency. On Monday, he suggested that emergency should continue until parliamentary elections for the maintenance of law and order. On Tuesday, he said elections cannot be held under emergency and hoped that emergency would be lifted prior to the declaration of the election schedule. Even if we disregard the first statement and assume that his second statement is correct, we unfortunately cannot agree with him. We believe that the state of emergency should be lifted immediately for the restoration of fundamental rights and full political freedoms should be ensured so that the country can prepare for elections in an enabling environment. While the political parties and politicians need to be able to get their message across to the electorate without restriction, and the electorate for their part need to be able to freely discuss and debate the various programmes and policies of the political parties prior to exercising their franchise. A state of emergency only creates a restrictive environment which is not at all conducive to the holding of truly participatory general elections. Moreover, continuing with the state of emergency has dire economic implications. Emergency rule always indicates that an abnormal situation persists in a country and that the country lacks political stability. Such an image invariably discourages investment, local and foreign, and leads ultimately to a slowdown of the economy. Such a situation is entirely undesirable. As for maintenance of law and order, it is a routine and ever-present responsibility of a government and not relevant only during the time of general elections.

Lastly, we do not believe that the rule of law can ever flourish when a country is under a state of emergency. Rule of law requires that the people enjoy full freedoms and rights, as ensured by our constitution. Therefore, we hope that the chief election commissioner will reconsider his suggestion and ask the government to withdraw the state of emergency at the earliest in order for credible and meaningful general elections to be held on the one hand, and work to strengthen the commission for it to be able to preside over credible and acceptable elections on the other.