Vote for...?
After hearing an appeal filed by one Abu Safa, Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division Justice Joynul Abedin also directed the Election Commission to accept the nomination papers of the candidates without the details.
It is to be mentioned here that the High Court on May 25, 2005, in a significant verdict, issued the order following a writ filed by three lawyers asking the Election Commission to seek eight particulars from aspiring candidates for parliamentary elections and make them public in their respective constituencies. It had also asked the Election Commission to hold joint projection meetings and to compel all the candidates to stand on a platform to answer to the queries of the people in their constituencies.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. The High Court said in the direction that the candidates should also inform the Election Commission whether they had been members of Parliament before and the role they played individually and collectively in fulfilling the commitment to the people.
The direction also said that the candidates should also report to the EC about the amount of loans taken from banks and financial institutions (personally, jointly or by dependent of a candidate) or loans taken from bank by the company where a candidate holds the post of chairman or director.
The Supreme Court's ruling essentially means that the voters will be denied their democratic right to form informed opinion about the contestants before casting their votes. Obviously, the High Court order threatened the interest of many politicians who have unlikable facts to conceal and whose electoral strength stems from undisclosed and unlimited sources of money and links with the world of crime.
Admittedly, as there is no provision for disclosure of these particulars of a candidate, the people remain in the dark about the qualifications of the candidates, and very often the less qualified people and law-breakers are elected to the legislature to shape national policies and to enact laws, also observed the High Court bench.
After passage of the order, Advocate KM Zabir, one of the original writ petitioners, told newsmen that following the order passed by the chamber judge of the Appellate Division, the corrupt people will get opportunity to contest the parliamentary election and Parliament will not be effective. He added that there will be no transparency in the details of the candidates and the corrupts, owners of black money, bank defaulters and musclemen will get the opportunity to go to Parliament.
Meanwhile, the accuracy of the voter roll still remains questionable even after the latest 10-day drive of the Election Commission (EC) for its correction. According to print and electronic media, thousands of people, who are eligible to be voters, have been left out, as the commission officials failed to cover most households in the capital city and elsewhere in the country. There were also instances of eligible voters not getting enrolled despite filling in prescribed forms more than once.
Such detachment on the part of EC is symptomatic of the way the commission has gone about the task of revising and updating the voter list right from the start. It has never shown the level of seriousness required to produce a reasonably accurate electoral roll. Instead, it has given rise to one controversy after another. Consequently, even if all the parties agree today to participate in the election as per the election schedule the commission has changed timed and again, it would be far from either meaningful or credible with such a dubious voter list.
Anyway, the proceedings that ended up in the Supreme Court's ruling also point to one sorry fact, that many of our political leaders do not want either the electoral process to be free of the influence of money and muscle or the electorate to be in possession of certain crucial information about the parliamentary candidates so that they can make the right decision in electing their representatives and are not taken in by lies, lies, and more lies.
Regrettably, the interest of the unscrupulous few has increasingly prevailed over the interest of the multitude. Interestingly enough, media reports have it that a section of leaders on either side of the political divide were behind the move to have the High Court order stayed. It is another painful reminder of the blatant fact that criminalization of politics has reached newer heights in our country.
The bottom line is that it is still pretty unclear whether people will be required to vote in the next general elections, as an inclusive election seems not in sight and existence in the voters roll is also unknown to many. It has, however, been made mandatory that the people will not be allowed to know about the candidates' personal information even if they are allowed to vote. The implication is that people will have to vote, but, of course, without asking any valid question regarding the candidates.