'Caretaker' system under spotlight

During those tumultuous days and nights, we saw how a universally acceptable formula was curved out after hectic consultations and frank exchange of views amongst all the pro-active opposition leaders, and how a rare unity of people and leaders was demonstrated through an unprecedented national consensus, whereby Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, the incumbent Chief Justice of the country was installed as the temporary head of the 'caretaker' government [and the acting head of State also]. Along with a neutral and judiciously selected council of advisers, the acting President was given the enormous responsibility of conducting the general elections in the early winter of 1991. And that was a time in our history when there was no sign of any note of dissent from any quarter. In fact everything was done in such a great haste and without of course any constitutional swathe whatsoever that the very concept of the high office of the 'Chief Adviser' was missing in that impromptu set-up at that point. But fortunately enough for the teeming millions, the formula happily clicked.

After the Magura bye-election scandal and subsequent mess up [of the whole matter] by the then ruling BNP, people were left with no choice but to strive for a queer electoral system [in 1996] which was not to be found anywhere else in the political scriptures of any country, great or small! Nevertheless, it was unquestionably an invention which could give us some solace that the general elections which are periodically held in our country in recent times or shall be held in future on a regular basis, would be truly free and fair. As a matter of fact the irony is, the Election Commission does not have adequate [permanent] manpower and explicit executive powers to act independently at the right moment when the question of conducting a full fledged general election comes up and secondly, the successive governments in office, due to their lack of fairness and integrity in running the show at the most crucial period(s) when elections were held, had totally failed to earn people's confidence.

It however goes to the credit of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, who first mooted the idea of a 'caretaker government' (CG) way back in 1980 [when General Zia was still alive]. However, due to some unknown [and unexplained] reason/s they failed to convince other leaders and parties of its salient features at that point, although they later lent their full and unqualified support to the relentless political movement spearheaded by the Awami League, Jatiyo Party and other opposition parties combined together, which eventually compelled Begum Khaled Zia and her BNP to bow down to the people's wishes in March 1996 and accept the 'CG' concept in full without any reservation. However it is quite surprising that a concentrated movement for a 'caretaker government' never raised its head during the eight-year autocratic rule of General Ershad, although his farcical elections [held in 1986 and 1988] were totally rejected by the majority of the countrymen. And once again if we look back impassively over the last ten years or so, we can note with due satisfaction the fact that the first and the second 'caretaker' governments certainly lived up to people's expectations while conducting the general elections in 1991 and 1996.

The new formula advanced by the main opposition AL apparently seems to be quite difficult one to implement, if not a totally impossible idea. Their contention that a consensus candidate shall have to be chosen to head the next 'CG' is a concept which might look quite viable on the surface, but is a difficult proposition to implement in reality no doubt. The first question that automatically crops up is: How will the political parties [which do not see even eye to eye on most of the national issues] find out a consensus candidate so easily to head the 'CG' in absence of a set formula? Secondly, when shall the search for the ideal man start and when shall it end? And third: What about the council of advisers? Who shall select them, or will the consensus formula be applied in that case also? Now to be very candid, all these are tricky questions whose answers may not be readily available at the moment.

The AL demand, backed by some left leaning parties and other opposition stalwarts, may eventually lead to some sort of a political imbroglio in the near future. On the other hand, from the Prime Minister's recent assertions made public, it can be assumed that this time she is not going to bend or relent. She has already declared that the future general elections [in 2006] would be held either according to the existing constitutional provisions or under the BNP government itself.

Undoubtedly for a country like Bangladesh where corruption still reigns supreme and with successive elected governments in the past having failed to conduct the general elections or even bye-elections [as happened in Magura in the early '90s] satisfactorily, the element of suspicion shall always persist, no matter how pious and sincere commitments are made from the dais. Seeing is believing as they say, and in almost all cases in the past the tendency to rig openly, even in front of neutral observers, was so glaring that a concentrated and strong movement for a neutral body to conduct the election automatically copped up. It however pains us when we look towards our sub-continental sisters--India, Pakistan, Nepal and even Maldives--who fully rely on their Election Commissions and have never thought of any interim, neutral body taking over for conducting the general elections. In those countries, the out-going government [in office] 'ipso-facto' turns over as the caretaker government to run the show. If the ruling party wins, the continuity factor is obviously unaffected; but if it loses the elections, it has to resign immediately.

Any deviation from the laid down convention and traditions automatically invites a big trouble, which all sensible, democracy loving politicians want to avoid. In our case, the universal demand to strengthen the Election Commission has been made many a times in the past, but it has totally fallen on deaf ears each time that it was raised. Even those who had originally mooted the 'caretaker' notion had spoken of reverting back to the original position after a few years of trial -- when the election arena would be ridden of the dishonest politicians and the public would in course of time become more vigilant. But that looks like a distant dream at the moment with none in a mood to concede even an inch. That of course means: The democratic system itself shall be under tremendous pressure in the coming days and months.

A K Faezul Haq is a lawyer and former minister.