The reform proposal seen from a different angle

In tune with the thought-provoking, truthful, reality-based observation of Carlyle we too here in Bangladesh have to look at the "reform" proposition of the Awami League led 14-party alliance in the same light. Reform, like any other idea denoting change for the better, is obviously a relative term to be seriously reckoned with. It has to take into account the subject in which reform is sought for.

If it is an individual, well, his or her personal attitude, educational background, cultural heritage, social status, mental receptivity and power of understanding the projected outcome of reform, etc will have to be taken into concurrent consideration. If it is an institutional reform that is conceived of, the overall regional and national impact of the proposed reform will have to be kept in view. Yet in either case, the involvement of individual or individuals invariably comes in. When it pertains or relates to any national issue the process of reform proposition turns out to be all the more critical. And when it is a political reform to be taken care of, the process will naturally be very tricky and cumbersome.

Our subject of discussion here is the proposal for reform tabled by the Awami League chief and Leader of the Opposition in parliament Sheikh Hasina on behalf of the 14-party alliance. Broadly, the whole proposition relates to two institutional bodies, namely, the Caretaker Government (CTG) and the Election Commission (EC). By the way, it is pertinent to remember that the concept of "caretaker government" has been the brain-child of the opposition Awami League.

The induction proposal of such a non-partisan caretaker government was ridiculed publicly by the present Prime Minister and BNP chief Begum Khaleda Zia as a product of insane brain or a child's innocent demand. Initially the proposition was straightway rejected by her, and all of her own she went for an election in February 1996. Parties in the opposition led by Awami League didn't participate. We can remember how that election was nullified and how Begum Zia was compelled to get the CTG concept duly authenticated by the Jatiya Sangsad through an amendment of the constitution.

In the national election of 2001 under a CTG headed by Justice Latifur Rahman, the BNP-led 4-party alliance won a landslide victory, bagging two-thirds of the seats. Yet the total percentage of vote received by Awami League was higher than the 4-party alliance. The defeated Awami League complained of a large-scale rigging manipulations and unfair means on the part of the CTG and of the EC.

Since his appointment as the chief of the CTG, the new incumbent was found to have been unusually enthusiastic in re-structuring even the administrative machinery much beyond his jurisdiction. He was observed to have been very busy with his "homework" even before he was formally appointed by the President. In the first place he made a sort of weird strategic plan on as many as thirteen (13) secretaries of different ministries before he could take his seat. Even he moved hurriedly to his official residence obviously to pre-empt any second thought on the part of the President as to his appointment which had already set in lot of controversy in the media.

The CEC Abu Sayeed, on the other hand, behaved himself as if in a hornet's nest. Many of his decisions didn't get the support of the other two election commissioners. Besides, in spite of being himself the chief of the Election Commission, he couldn't exercise any administrative control on the Secretary -- the position being accountable to the Prime Minister's Office. Prior to his relinquishing the office of CEC he made a statement which replicated his lamentations and limitations for an unworkable system.

Among the limitations of the CEC, or for that matter, the whole Election Commission, could have been part of it from the apparently outrageous personal intervention of the chief of the caretaker government. The ultimate result of the 2001 election, notwithstanding the fact that the opposition Awami League polled 43 percent of the total vote cast as against 39 percent of the winning 4-party alliance, couldn't be as clear as it should have been. It is true that in such election one will lose and the other win. Yet, efforts should be there to make the whole process of election absolutely transparent and free from dubious intervention of the custodian in the conduct of national election.

The demand for reform of the Caretaker Government and of the Election Commission was formally placed in the Jatiya Sangsad in its last session by Awami League chief and leader of the opposition Sheikh Hasina. On the last day of the session the prime minister announced her willingness to set up a committee to examine the opposition reform proposal. The committee would comprise members from both the entities. On the face of it, the announcement of the leader of the house appeared to have been the right step. Yet the leader of the opposition considered the PM's statement too vague and inconclusive to merit immediate agreeable comment.

Over the past few days since February 28 (the day PM made the announcement) the doubt expressed tacitly by Sheikh Hasina seems to have been not totally unfounded. The Prime Minister in her public meetings across the country continues making blistering remarks on the reform proposals of the opposition. She harps on the same string, stating that the opposition (AL in particular) "is sure to lose in the next election and hence asks for reform of the Caretaker Government." Her latest remark stipulates that Awami League doesn't want to contest election under a caretaker government and that the army will be under the direct control of the President and not of the CTG, as proposed by the AL-led 14 party alliance. So, such remarks in public meetings shall be enough to present the status of her inner mind which is palpably averse to any reform.

Co-incidentally, the price of mind as presented by the Prime Minister has a striking semblance to a queer but usual practice in vogue in the area of management. It says that when the management of an organisation has reservation about any reform proposal from its employees, it consigns the problem to a committee so as not to see the light of day.

In this instance, the committee proposition and concurrent bitter criticism of the reform proposal in the same breath can be construed to have been a gimmick to bide time. The PM's stance might appear to be one that calls to mind the thought-provoking presentation of the great American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorn (1804-1864) when he said: "No man can, for any considerable time, wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which is the true one."

Reform of any system depends much on provisions it holds but it would be an exercise in futility unless the implementers are equally in a state of reform in their thoughts, attitude, and action. All these salubrious inputs will only then be deployed towards bigger benefit of the people at large. Yet there is no guarantee that the reform at both ends will give the desired results. This fear is expressed, keeping in view the massive involvement of people in the election having diverse social, educational, and financial standing. Even then the reform, when worked out through a consensus, will have to be put on test to gain newer experience. Concurrently, let us make honest endeavour to reform our mind-set to meet the statutory reforms and the purposes thereof.

Kazi Alauddin Ahmed is a freelance contributor of The Daily Star.