Thinking over reform of caretaker system

It is true that almost every person is formally or informally thinking about this.

The system of caretaker govt was introduced in our constitution in 1996 by the then BNP government on demand of Awami League and other like-minded parties. By boycotting the February 15 election, the AL cleared the road for BNP to alone provide the law of caretaker government. After implementation of this law, then, AL as well as the other parties did not find any flaw in the law and took part in that election. But after losing the election in 2001, AL raised questions about the fairness and neutrality of that election. And the same was done by BNP in 1996 election. Both the parties, AL and BNP were dissatisfied when they lost the election. Given this background and the political culture of the country, does it not appear that caretaker system is not the solution of political confrontation between the parties!

SM Abdur Rahman rightly remarks: "No system is entirely foolproof and beyond manipulation by those with ill motives and bent upon doing so." Mr Kibria in his article confides that he could detect the flaws and loopholes of the law. If this is right then everyone will ask him, why he or his party did not advise to mend the loopholes? In 1996 it was an easy task to pressurise the BNP government for a congenial caretaker provision. Because of mass agitation and support for a provision of neutral and non-party government, AL had considerable leeway to pressure the BNP. Moreover, his party was in power after the 1996 election when he could have raised the matter in parliament.

There may be so much thesis and anti-thesis for and against the caretaker system. Every student of political science will admit that the non-political government for holding electoral activities is a degeneration of democratic norms. The necessity for the system is evidence of our lack of political maturity.

The inception of the caretaker system has been provided for three terms aiming to promote a congenial atmosphere for fostering of democratic culture. It was thought that three national polls under the caretaker system would help our fledgling democracy stand on its own two feet. The confrontational attitude of both the parties' demagogues did not help get the democratic norms on track, though.

Despite all this, in the context of our present situation, to make a free and fair election, nothing is acceptable other than the caretaker government. And to make it acceptable to all, some sort of amendment is needed also. Mr. Kibria suggested some change in provisions of appointing chief advisor, who is to be selected by free choice among all the retired judges of the appellate division including the retired chief justice. Though some sort of questions about "both sides" have come forth, yet it is not so difficult to understand that these are the party or parties in position and opposition. It would not be irrational to say that a wide choice may create discord again. So choice for chief advisor should be kept limited to three or four options.

Next comes the choice of advisors. As in democracy, both the side in position or opposition are like the two hands of the state. Only they have the right to nominate advisors. They should be appointed in equal share from the choice list presented to the chief advisor by both parties. The personnel in the choice list will have no identity or political banner. If it is done, then the members could serve as the watch dog to guard against partisanship.