How to resolve the political conflict

The present regime is to hand over power to a non-party caretaker government within fifteen days from that day as per Art. 58C.2 of the constitution. A new parliament would need to be formed with a general election of members of parliament within ninety days after parliament is dissolved (Art. 123.3) on October 28.

The new parliament would elect the prime minister (Art. 56.3) who in turn would form a government (Art. 55.1). The non-party caretaker government would hand over power to the newly elected PM immediately (Art. 58B.1) and the non-party caretaker government would cease to exist simultaneously.

The above shows the constitutional way of transfer of power from one elected government to the next with a non-party caretaker transitional government in between. The constitution describes formation of transitional government and its function.

The most important role played during the interim non-party caretaker government is by the president. The chief adviser, along with the other advisers, and the election commissioners are the other dominant players of the interim government who would conduct the next general election.

The problem started when Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury, elected president by the ruling alliance was forced to resign by the government party. Dr. Chowdhury was the founder secretary general of BNP. It was revealed that he had been forced out from his position for maintaining neutrality in performing his duties.

The spirit of the constitution is that the post of president would not belong to any political party and would be above both government and opposition as a guardian of the nation. Removal of such a senior party leader from the presidency on the grounds of his impartiality raised doubts about the intentions of the ruling party. It was apprehended that the government party may be planning to manipulate the next general election which would be held during the interim period and wanted a president totally loyal to them to provide necessary support in that respect.

The doubt took its root deeper when the government made an amendment to the constitution for increasing the retirement age of the High Court and Supreme Court judges by another two years. The action was justified by the government to deal with huge backlog of cases in the higher judiciary, which otherwise could not be managed due to shortage of senior and experienced judges.

But it is seen that this has allowed the serving chief justice to continue during the interim period and made the position of chief adviser devolve on the last retired chief justice. The opposition parties opposed this constitutional amendment when they found that the person who has been predetermined by this to become the chief adviser of the next interim government had some time in the past served as an executive committee member of BNP. But the ruling alliance went through the amendment in spite of the said opposition. This has confirmed the apprehension of the opposition that the ruling party would try to exert undue influence during the election, using the support of the administration under people loyal to them.

The final blow to the confidence of the opposition came when government unilaterally appointed a chief election commissioner on retirement of the incumbent. Of course, the government was right when they pointed out that during the past regime also appointment of the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners was done in a similar way amidst protest by the opposition.

But the new CEC from the very beginning started taking actions one after another which left no scope to consider him anything but pro-government. His first action was in respect of preparation of a fresh voter list for the next general election. Generally, the voter list is supposed to be a continuous document which would be changing in contents on an almost day to day basis. As such, it needs to be revised as and when necessary, that is before any election on the basis of the real situation in the field. There is hardly any logic to making a new voter list completely ignoring the existing one. Even if it is assumed that the existing one has lots of mistakes, it is possible that the wrongs can be corrected on the basis of reality.

The government party had always an accusation against the last government that they made a faulty voter list by including a large number of ghost voters in order to influence the election results in their favor. But that allegation seems doubtful as the present alliance government came out victorious in the last general election with a wide margin.

In spite of that, the chief election commissioner called all political parties (numbering about 150) for a dialogue to hear their views. Ultimately he decided in line with the government's desire for a voter list made afresh. The above decision was challenged by the other two serving election commissioners and the chief election commissioner became a minority in the EC. This raised a legal barrier for him to implement his decision unilaterally. Apparently, government came to his rescue at that time and two more election commissioners were given appointment within a record minimum time. The two newly appointed commissioners were alleged to be pro-government people. One reportedly held an office-bearer position of the ruling party in the past and the other was known to have close links with the ruling party decision makers.

Under the circumstance, the major opposition Awami League with its partners in the 14-party alliance put up a series of demands for amendment of existing non-party caretaker government system and the election commission with a view to ensure free and fair elections in a neutral environment.

The major demands are removal of CEC and the other election commissioners and to replace them with people acceptable by all major political parties; selection of chief adviser as per Art.58C.5 of the constitution, ignoring other provisions (sub-clause 3 & 4 of Art.58C) in this regard, where it is stipulated that the chief adviser would be appointed in consultation as far as practicable with the major political parties; control of the defense services during the caretaker period by the chief adviser and not to president as stipulated in the existing constitution (Art. 61).

The government had ultimately agreed to sit with the opposition for a dialogue. But at the same time the PM started her campaign to describe the reform initiative as a conspiracy hatched by the opposition to foil the democratic process. There have been quite a few letters written from one side to the other but both sides could not agree to sit together as yet.

In the meantime, the October 28 deadline is approaching fast. Now the question that is stirring the mind of the people is would it be possible to have a negotiated settlement and subsequent amendment before that date, and if not then what are the consequences.

Power is to be handed over by the present government as per the constitution on the due date. If no settlement could be reached by that time, the president may not have any option but to assume the responsibility of chief adviser of the caretaker government also as per provision of the constitution (Art.58C.6).

It is rumoured that the present government for some reason lost confidence in the president. This has created uneasiness for the government since the president may even have to assume simultaneous authority to act as chief adviser. The government is now looking for a more loyal president. It is also alleged that the president has been forced to submit his letter of resignation which has been collected by the PM before she left for Kuwait. It is suggested that the president fell sick subsequently. May these all be just rumours.

It must be remembered that the resolution of any conflict between two parties is possible with a bi-partisan negotiation only if both have mutual trust and respect. Is there any reason to believe that it is true in the present context of Bangladesh? If not, then appointment of an arbitrator who would have the authority to enforce his decisions may yield some result.

Could that be made possible? In our country, initiatives of foreign missions are viewed as undue interference and considered as infringement on sovereignty. But in Sri Lanka negotiations between the government and LTTE guerrillas are being mediated by a representative of the Norwegian government and the question of surrendering of sovereignty never came up. Similar things are happening in other parts of the world. If the conflicting political parties want to avoid uncertainty and possible chaos which may even lead to violence and civil war, we must find a way out on the basis of reality and not on vanity.

The writer is a Member of Parliament.