Can the opposition reform proposal ensure level ground for election?

In response, after lapse of about two weeks, Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia on February 28 stated that a committee constituting members from government and opposition parties would be formed for a negotiated settlement.

Formal letter from the BNP secretary general in respect of formation of a committee was delivered to the AL secretary general on March 20. It took long five weeks from the day of placement of the reform proposal in the parliament for receiving a written response from the government side.

From that day letters are being exchanged one after another from both sides on different grounds for formation of the committee. But the fact remains that committee for negotiation could not be finalized till the beginning of April. Subsequent discussion and finally a negotiated settlement looks too far away a destination to reach before the term of the present government expires. There looks to be an attitude of delay from both sides.

Of course, from the statements of the PM and other important leaders of ruling alliance on various occasions and also from the above there should not be any doubt that the government is reluctant to discuss the reform issue, more so, in case of accepting or implementing any reform in the present system. The PM recently said in a public meeting that there is no need for any reform in caretaker system or election process. She affirmed that election would take place on time under the existing system as stipulated in the constitution. Since the ruling alliance would relinquish power before election date and election would take place at a time when none of the political parties would be in position of authority, there would exist no opportunity for any party to take advantage in the coming general election. She also said if AL felt so strongly about reforms in caretaker system and election process why did not they do that when they had been in power.

When she made that accusation she conveniently forgot that due to some actions taken by her government in the recent past, reforms in the caretaker system and also in the election process have already taken place in favour of the present alliance government. This has made the necessity for some counter-measures natural at least to neutralize the effects of partisan reforms already done. Moreover, it was the unholy intentions revealed by the said reforms and by other activities done so far during the period of 4-party alliance rule prompted the opposition to demand further reforms to ensure free and fair election.

The constitution has been amended to raise the retirement age of High Court judges. Services of some other constitutional positions have been extended with some deliberate exceptions. Though being in a similar constitutional position, nothing was changed for the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners.

As per the 14-party opposition alliance, the first measure manipulated fixing of the position of chief advisor of caretaker government for a specific person who in the past happened to be an office-bearer of the ruling party BNP.

The existing chief election commissioner had to go on expiry of term and a new chief was appointed as per the sole choice of the government. Positions of election commissioners were increased unilaterally by the government. Two new election commissioners were appointed by the PMO at a time when disagreements started surfacing between the new chief election commissioner and the existing two election commissioners. The new appointees have been perceived as pro-government by the opposition considering their past record and activities. It was widely believed that the new appointments were made in an exceptional haste to provide timely support to the pro-government activities of the chief election commissioner against the resistance of the other already serving election commissioners.

The first elected president of the 4-party alliance government, Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury, the founder secretary general of the ruling BNP, had to resign as per decision of the parliamentary party of BNP. Till date no fault could be mentioned against him excepting that he started behaving as a neutral person looking equally to all and not acting like a partisan BNP person. Being neutral is the necessity of the position of President as expected in our constitution. Subsequently, the ruling party appointed another President of their choice. The opposition feels the new president is not taking any chances and avails all opportunities to make it obvious that he is partisan and pro-ruling party.

Neutrality of President is also important for ensuring a fair election. Chief Advisor of the caretaker government along with other advisers is appointed by the President and they are answerable to him. During that period the armed forces of the country are directly under the command of the President. So, post of the President is on the top in respect of both power and position during the interim period.

The three major institutions responsible for conducting the next general election during the interim caretaker government are Presidency, Caretaker Government and Election Commission. From the above, it may be observed that the present government has already made gross interference in all the above institutions. It is believed by the opposition that this has been done with an ulterior motive to manipulate the institutions to work in favor of ruling coalition. These manipulative reforms contradict to ensuring free and fair election. As per opposition, new reforms have now become necessary to nullify the above manipulative reforms already done by the government.

In addition to the above, the present government continued lots of other irregular, illegal and unethical activities or manipulations throughout its entire tenure. These were done to gain through corruption and also to influence the result of the next general election. It started from day one when the new government was formed. All senior government party leadership including PM had been bitterly critical of the condition of economy of the country at that time, terming it fragile and weak. But instead of taking austerity measures as would have been appropriate for them if the condition had been truly as such, the government was formed with the biggest ever ministry having about 60 ministers and 100 persons in total provided with the rank and status along with financial benefits of a minister.

Ministers were being used to control the bureaucracy and the public fund to be used in favor of the government party leadership and members. Government relief, jobs, business, contracts for development works, purchases etc. that means expenditure from public fund and use of government facilities are done mainly to serve either self interest of ruling party leadership or the partisan interest of the ruling coalition through irregular and corrupt practices. Those are distributed to the party loyalist and to people who could convince that they would provide support to the ruling party in next election. All rules and norms are ignored in providing those favours.

Development works and relief distribution works carried out in different areas are being restricted or increased by control of the fund to be provided based on partisan interest. Funds are restricted and development works and distribution of relief materials are stopped to punish people who did not vote in favor of the government party candidate in the last election. The same is released partially in case they agree to support the government party candidate in the next general election. The opposite happens to the areas where government party won the election and they are reminded of the prizes they are receiving.

Government party MPs and leaders are being allowed to use huge public funds regularly in different forms to allure people to vote for them in the next general election. In a poor country like Bangladesh money does play a distinct role in influencing the election results. As such, in order to keep the election free from the unholy influence of money, the total use of money has been kept within a limit by law. But, government party potential candidates including MPs and ministers have already started expending from public exchequer much more amount before the actual election period.

In order to achieve the above, the ruling alliance government had to use persons from bureaucracy who would not only accept and implement irregular directives of the government but would promote the party in power as and when necessary. Thorough politicization of the administration had been carried out for that. Employees who could show unquestionable loyalty to the ruling party, may he/she be inefficient or corrupt does not matter, are located and are put in important key positions. Most of them received extension of service after retirement, promotions, good postings superceding senior or more qualified or efficient persons by bending or even changing the rules if necessary. Many who failed to pass the loyalty test are being made OSD (officer on special duty) or are forced out on retirement.

The Daily Star on March 25 printed a very detailed report on this subject in the first headline story titled "Promotion, changes in civil admin now rampant," with sub title "Govt. allegedly mapping out election victory by using loyalists."

The report states: "The practice of giving promotion, contractual appointments, making officials OSD and sending them to forced retirement on political consideration has now become a regular phenomenon in the civil administration and is viewed by observers as a serious attempt to use the administration during the next general election."

Proposed reforms mainly comprise of appointment of Chief Adviser and Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners as per agreed choice, and placement of armed forces under the command of Chief Advisor. It would seem natural that the opposition alliance would make efforts to hurry in formation of committee and start negotiation to enhance achieving their target, but the opposite seems to be happening. What might be the reason?

It is obvious from the above that proposed reforms only cannot ensure a fair ground for election. Thorough politicization of administration and gross misuse of government funds and authority have made the environment unfavorable for conduct of a free and fair election.

As The Daily Star reported on March 25: "Politicization of each of the departments has been so thorough that the interim government will not be able to dismantle their comprehensive control on the administration as the removal of one official would only mean another official loyal to the four party alliances assuming the post, noted many former and serving bureaucrats."

The uneven ground for contest of election has been solidified by politicization and the misuse of funds and authority of the government. Hard ground needs to be broken by tremor for making it level. That tremor could be made possible by the collective voice of demand of the people. As such, the opposition's strategy of delay in negotiation would be considered reasonable if they could lead their movement outside the negotiating table to that level before concluding the negotiated settlement.

GM Quader is a Member of Parliament.