How effective will the new CEC be?

There are two important facets to the issue of the appointment of the new CEC, whose office plays a vital role in the promotion of democracy by way of holding free and fair election. One is the manner and mechanism of appointing the CEC, and the other is the acceptability of the person fulfilling the requirements of this high and onerous office.

There is indeed no question of the desirability of appointing the CEC and, for that matter, any other exalted political posts, which have any bearing on affecting the fate and future of political parties, on the basis of national consensus. But one has to be pragmatic. Our political culture has manifested a continuing mistrust among political parties which has made building of consensus on any major issue a painstaking process and almost an impossible task. As a matter of fact, lack of faith and trust for each other by the two principal political parties, for reasons justified or not, appeared so deep-rooted that the AL had to launch a strong and sustained movement in 1994 for introducing the unique system of caretaker government, instead of the government of the day, to conduct national elections. The ruling BNP ultimately yielded to this demand and imparted legal framework to the proposed system by way of passing an amendment to the constitution in the next parliament.

That is why one may assume that the process of consultation with political parties to evolve a consensus could have dragged on a long time and turned into a stalemate. Yet, it would have undoubtedly been a good gesture to be able to undertake the task, if it could be accomplished and in a timely manner. The BNP cast doubt on that possibility. They decided to follow the path followed by previous governments to appoint the CEC unilaterally and as per constitution.

It is true that five years ago Awami League Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made a magnanimous gesture of writing a letter, which I personally saw, to the Leader of the Opposition Begum Khaleda Zia, inviting her to the Prime Minister's office to discuss the issue of appointing a Chief Election Commissioner. The letter was personally carried by the Prime Minister's Assistant Private Secretary one afternoon suggesting the meeting to take place on the following day. Begum Zia had already a scheduled programme at the stipulated time. She wrote back expressing regret, but soliciting another mutually convenient date and time. There was no reply. Instead, came out the announcement of Mr. M. A. Syed's appointment as the Chief Election Commissioner. The BNP high command took the Prime Minister's gesture for an insincere attempt and an eye-wash for the public.

They protested against the procedure, rejected the appointment, though not against the person, but ultimately accepted him and participated

in the elections held under his supervision. The BNP did not make it a major issue worthy of incorporation in a national movement. But, it is an irony of fate that the same CEC, M. A. Syed, who was unilaterally appointed by the Awami League against the wishes of the Opposition, was later called by the same Awami League as unfair and partisan. Also, a consensus candidate can be subject to heavy criticism, as was the case of former President Justice Shahabudin Ahmed. This proves that nothing is sure to prove right as was intended to prove.

As for the person and his background, the new Chief Election Commissioner was emphatic in saying that he had never indulged in politics and did not wish to do so in future. He went so far as to state that he did not understand politics. The purpose of his over-eagerness appeared to be to assert that he did not hold a brief for any political party so that all parties would expect him to be fair and impartial in carrying out his official business. In view of this, the AL high command's declaration of non-acceptance of him on the plea of the ruling party gaining political advantage with this appointment is not well comprehended.

Justice Aziz had been a judge of the highest rung of the judiciary in the country and is reported to have dispensed justice, as expected, without fear and favour. Some of his judgments might have pleased some political parties and made some other parties unhappy. But, this is inherent in judgment in all cases. He has no record to have belonged to any political party, not shown partiality to anyone in his official duty, and never accepted any office of profit offered on political considerations. Then how can such a person be expected to allow the BNP to gain undue political benefit during the parliamentary election? Besides, who can tell that he might not in future turn against the very political party which had given him the job and be subject to its criticism? We have already witnessed such a phenomenon.

The government thus appears to have appointed the CEC unilaterally, perhaps, for three considerations: that the process of consultation to evolve a consensus would have taken long and ultimately proven futile, that the action taken was practiced by previous governments and sanctioned by the constitution, and finally, that the integrity of the incumbent as a person and judge is beyond dispute. If the opposition decides to continue to hold this appointment as a major issue in a movement for the fall of the government, it would be fallacious, expose the unreasonableness of the opposition, and cut down their popular support. On the contrary, they should fully co-operate with the new CEC, since an effective Election Commission will always be helpful to the Opposition in order to evade possible and undue machinations of the ruling party.

The Opposition may, on the other hand, more realistically now urge the government to give the new Chief Election Commissioner due authority, independence of action and adequate resources with a view to establishing a befitting secretariat, framing of its own rules and regulations, allowing itself free mobilization of human resources, and securing unhindered management of its own finance. The outgoing CEC already outlined his proposals of reform, as his parting shot, to make this highly important institution truly effective and worthy of its name. As there are good examples already set by some of our neighbours, what should then prevent us from benefiting from their experience? Having had a credible, effective, and powerful Election Commission, they never thought of devising a basically undemocratic institution like a non-partisan caretaker government to supervise elections. Some may wonder, with a good Election Commission if the nation can afford to dispense with even the very system of caretaker government and put an end to the wasteful and relentless debate currently besetting the nation.

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.