PM won; an opportunity lost?

A few days back Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina demonstrated her political sagacity by rethinking her decision of making Syed Ashraful Islam a minister without portfolio.

A week into removing him from the LGRD ministry, the premier gave Ashraf the public administration portfolio last Thursday.

Her decision to make Ashraf – the general secretary of the ruling Awami League – a minister without portfolio had triggered muted commotion and discomfort in and outside her camp. But Hasina has successfully reined in the situation from deteriorating further.

Party workers were not vocal with their unhappiness. The pervasive political culture allows party leaders little space to criticise the party chief's decision regardless of it being right or wrong.

But in private conversations with journalists, some AL leaders spoke out. The media have run reports of it in most cases without revealing the identities of the leaders.

Outside her party her decision was criticised in news and social media as well.

Amid such repercussions, Hasina acted quickly. She talked with Ashraf several times to convince him not to fly to London during the Eid vacation. The news of his planned departure for London might have fuelled speculation that he might not return like Sohel Taj, who has been living in the US since quitting his post as state minister of home affairs in May 2009.

Hasina first successfully convinced Ashraf to postpone his trip to London and later she also convinced the AL general secretary to take the public administration portfolio. 

The unforeseen development seems to have made her change the original decision. It is a good sign that she showed flexibility and handled a sensitive situation with deft touches to mollify Syed Ashraf.

There is no doubt that changing her decision has benefited her. It has also pacified the growing unease inside the party.

The way Hasina changed her decision is a rare example in the contemporary power politics of Bangladesh.

The story however leaves some important points to ponder.

The situation could have been different after removal of Ashraf had the two ministers who are mired in controversies shown the door. There was also a strong indication that the ministers would be dropped from the cabinet.

But none of them were axed.

A crucial question had been raised in and outside of AL: why was Ashraf removed while these controversial ministers remained in the cabinet?

His removal had also given an impression that a politician with clean image was punished. Ashraf drew sympathy for his clean image as an honest politician. But the premier did not allow such criticism to fester.

Did Hasina make a compromise by giving Ashraf the portfolio that she herself had been holding?

Whatever the consideration, the turn of events has left a strong message: honesty in politics still matters.

A minister without portfolio is nothing new in Bangladesh but its nature is different than that of in other countries. It is this different style of doing things here that seemed to have stopped Hasina from putting Ashraf in a special role in the government even as a minister without portfolio.

 In our practice of parliamentary democracy, keeping a minister without portfolio is considered a punishment. A minister without portfolio is not allowed to attend the cabinet meeting.

But there is no constitutional or any legal bar on a minister without portfolio from attending cabinet meetings. It is the right of a cabinet member to attend the meeting and take part in the decision making process.

The story of ministers without portfolio is different in other countries: they rather play important roles.

In UK, the birthplace of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, the chairman or a senior leader of the party in power is made a minister without portfolio to allow him in cabinet meetings. Such a minister works like a bridge between the government and the party, playing an important role.

One of his key responsibilities is to advise the prime minister on issues including economic strategy. He also contributes to the government's policy and decision making process.

In India, the world's largest democracy, Lal Bahadur Shastri, who had held several important portfolios in Jawaharlal Nehru's government, played a significant role as a minister without portfolio.

He was made minister without portfolio during Prime Minister Nehru's illness to take some load off Nehru's shoulder. After Nehru's death, Shastri, a distinguished politician, became the PM in 1964.

The removal of Ashraf from LGRD ministry had given PM Hasina an opportunity to do something new to set a good precedence in our parliamentary democracy.

Ashraf, according to some media reports, was not willing to accept the new portfolio. But he was convinced to take it. It seems that Ashraf's new portfolio is less important than his previous one. Has it given Ashraf an equal position?

Yet, in a demonstration of his loyalty to Hasina, Ashraf honoured his leader by agreeing to accept the new portfolio. 

Could things have been done in different way? Could the precedence of other countries on the minister without portfolio be followed to keep Ashraf engaged in the government functions? Wasn't it possible to set a precedence by availing this opportunity?