No good news in politics

Caretaker, EC issues give birth to confrontatio. 

 

Politics has turned more volatile and confrontational over the last three years. People fear that possible political unrest ahead of the next parliamentary polls might erupt because of the sudden cancellation of the caretaker government (CG) system.

The cancellation of the CG has already created a political stalemate as the BNP-led opposition parties have unequivocally announced they will not participate in the next parliamentary election if the CG system is not restored. 

The opposition parties, as they have already declared, will make efforts to strengthen the anti-government street agitation in the coming days to have the demand realised. 

The government and ruling AL policymakers in response keep rejecting the opposition camp's demands, believing that the cancellation of the CG has outplayed their rivals as the party itself will remain in office during the next parliamentary polls. 

And in defence of its political stance, the ruling AL may strengthen its efforts to counter the opposition on the streets. The face-off could lead to political violence in the coming days. 

The way the ruling AL-led government unilaterally abolished the CG system in June 2011 was nothing but the outcome of the pervasive culture of confrontation in politics. 

It rejected outright the demands raised by the opposition as well as a number of non-partisan eminent citizens for retaining the CG system in the interest of holding free and fair parliamentary elections. 

The Supreme Court in May declared unconstitutional and void the provision relating to the CG system, but it also stated that two more parliamentary polls could be held under the system. 

Government policymakers vehemently defended and relied on the verdict to reject the demand for retaining the CG system, although there was a controversy over the clarity of the apex court's verdict.

The government action in respect of the cancellation of the CG and non-action on some other issues clearly makes a mockery of the ruling AL's own electoral pledges to bring about changes in the culture of confrontation in politics, which has made parliament ineffective, hampered rule of law, and marred good governance.

In the wake of political violence on the streets in 2006 and 2007 centering around the ninth parliamentary polls, the AL in its electoral manifesto pledged that tolerance and decency would come into political culture and efforts would be taken to formulate a code of conduct acceptable to all.

The AL also pledged reforms for ensuring democratic practices within political parties, and promised to take all measures necessary to make parliament more effective.

But all pledges remain only on paper. The government has yet to make any move to implement the electoral pledges in order to bring about a qualitative change in political culture. 

And as a result political culture has remained bereft of any change. Even the animosities between the two arch rival camps -- AL and BNP -- are on the rise on some fronts, contributing largely to a diminishing of hope for a political consensus among them about the mode of holding the next parliamentary polls after expiry of the incumbent government's tenure. 

Given the developing situation, New Year 2012 will mark the fourth year of the AL-led government in office. The government might not be able to offer anything pleasant in people's political lives since the legacy of yesteryears' political events is set to dominate the next political course. 

The New Year may witness much heat in the political arena centering on the formation of the next Election Commission (EC) after the expiry of the incumbent EC in early February this year.

The formation of the new EC now appears to be much crucial after the cancellation of the CG that earlier took office after the expiry of a partisan government's tenure and provided all support to the EC to hold parliamentary polls since1996. 

So, the government's any unilateral move to appoint people of its own choice as chief election commissioner and election commissioners may add fuel to the opposition parties' street agitation.

In light of the bitter memories of political deadlocks the country has suffered in the pastover EC-related controversies, people aware of political developments have already voiced concern about a further deterioration of the political situation.

The rival ruling and opposition camps may not be equally blamed for the unchanged political culture and for growing anxiety and fear in the public mind. But neither of them has demonstrated the political will necessary to initiate responsible and constructive politics in the last three years.

Instead, many senior leaders and MPs of both parties were seen uninterruptedly engaging in a war of words, even to the point of making derogatory remarks and exchanging tirades in and outside parliament, thus contributing largely to a polluting of the political atmosphere. 

Thanks to the ruling party's indifference to its own electoral promise of making parliament functional, the main opposition BNP seems to have opted for holding parliament hostage to its demands in order to make political gains. 

They have been frequently boycotting the House, making it unable to function effectively. In so doing, the BNP has also ignored its electoral pledges made before the last polls to take tough measures to put a stop to the House boycott culture. 

In brief, one can say that the way things are moving across the political landscape shows a similarity with the events that led to the declaration of a state of emergency in January 2007.

Still, solutions to all the problems lie in the ruling and opposition camps' political will which is the driving force for change. And it is their political will that can offer people good news in the New Year, removing all anxiety from their political lives.

Collected :

Dialogue with the President: What dialogue?

A common apprehension everywhere these days is that violence is round the corner in our politics. The ruling party and the opposition are both openly talking about the forebodings in the air but blaming each other for the violence they are suspecting will happen soon. In fact, they are saying the violence will start in February.

 

The President’s decision to hold talks with the political parties to choose the next Election Commission (EC) has hinted indirectly that a serious clash between the mainstream parties is very much possible because the step he has undertaken is very unusual to say the least. The opposition has underscored the unusual nature of the President’s decision stating clearly that the Constitution does not give him such a power. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister recommends the names to the President to choose an EC who has little 

 power but to accept.

The President can of course request the Prime Minister to reconsider the recommendation but he must sign on the dotted lines once the Prime Minister makes up her/his mind. Normally, if here is any difference of opinion on any of the Prime Minister’s recommendations, the President has no power under the constitution to say or do anything any public. The constitution by design and purpose has made the office of the President nothing but titular. 

 

The constitutional restriction notwithstanding, there is this little problem that the President himself has created on the issue of his acceptance to the opposition political parties. He had given an interview to a private TV channel after being elected President where he was asked what he would do if he received a recommendation from the Prime Minister with which he did not agree. He answered almost by reflex action that his “Netri” could do no wrong! The exercise upon which the President has embarked could only succeed if he had the option to be neutral. Sadly, we all know our political realities. He just does not have that sort of power, neither by the constitution nor by his position, having been put in office of the President by the ruling party that he had served loyally all his life.

 

Those who advised the President to call the dialogue should have considered these issues. Even in choice of the issue for the dialogue, these Advisers did not act wisely or in the interest of the nation. The choice of the next EC is not the issue that has the potential to push the country towards the dangerous conflict that many people are apprehending. The apprehension is coming from the decision of the ruling party to conduct the next national elections under an interim administration that it will conduct, in all probability with Sheikh Hasina as the interim Prime Minister.

 

In addition, the ruling party will also have a civil bureaucracy that it has politicized totally to assist the interim government. From these loyal bureaucrats, the ruling party is in the process of choosing those bureaucrats whom it considers as its activists for the key posts in district and police administration that would be crucial for the elections. If this is not enough, the government has recently sent its party activists to the posts of administrators in the district councils!

 

With such a blueprint so palpably evident the opposition could be expected to take part in entering into a dialogue with the President to choose the next EC if they are politically naïve or have some other motive. It is sad that those who advised the President did not take into account that he is one of our most senior politicians and has earned respect for himself. The exercise of the dialogue is bound to end in futility and dishonour not just the President personally but also bring disrespect to the high office he holds. The ruling party has pushed the President into the fray merely to show the nation that it is serious about choosing an EC by consensus. It is sad that in using the President’s office this way, the ruling party did not care to remember its predicament with President Biswas in 1996 when he had threatened to use his office beyond what the constitution permitted him.

 

By choosing the EC as the subject of his dialogue, the President has undermined the real issue on which the country could explode in violence, namely the search for acceptable formula for holding the next general election. The issue of the next general election has become everybody’s concern, except of the ruling party, because of the abolition of the caretaker government. The last four elections, three under a non-party and neutral caretaker government and another where neither of the mainstream parties had any role in the government that held the elections, were free and fair. Only the losing party was the one that raised any question of credibility of these elections. All observers, both national and overseas, gave the elections the highest marks on the issue of freeness and fairness. In fact, the  caretaker government was one with which Bangladesh could have made a  claim to introducing into elections of the developing countries a system that ensured a free and fair election.

 

After the present government came to power, the court recommended abolishing the caretaker government because the constitution had given it a limited time span. The court, however, also recommended that at least two more elections should be held under it taking into view the nature of politics in the country where the history of elections under a political party in power has been one of rigging and fraud.  The ruling party used its parliamentary majority to replace the CG system with an interim government without even waiting for the full verdict of the Court which is still awaited!   

 

The indecent hurry with which the ruling party ended the CG system for an interim administration so that it could hold the next national elections spilled the beans on its intentions. Its subsequent actions revealed a blue print for returning to power. Thus by the time the President called the dialogue for selecting the next EC, few outside the ruling party and its coalition partners felt that a new EC would be selected with views from the opposition taken into consideration or that the interim government would allow it the sort of independence that could make it an alternative to the neutral caretaker government.

 

It is a matter of regret that the President himself has chosen to overlook the status of current politics in Bangladesh. His dialogue with the parties in the ruling coalition has been an un-necessary exercise, a waste of both his valuable time and those of the parties that attended the dialogue.  One would not have blamed the BNP if it had stayed away from the dialogue because before the President embarked on such an exercise, his aides should have sounded out the opposition. This does not seem to have been the case. In fact, it looks like those who organized the dialogue knew that the BNP would not attend and the AL would get political mileage for trying to form an EC by consensus.

 

By deciding to attend, the BNP has made a smart political move and has pre-empted the AL from getting the political mileage it expected.  The BNP would now no doubt its participation in the dialogue to inform the President face to face that no one would be able to save the country from an impending disaster unless the ruling party relents on its decision to hold the next general elections under an interim government to be headed by the outgoing Prime Minister. The BNP would also no doubt push the President for the immediate publication of the full verdict of the court on abolition of the CG system and insist that its recommendation for the next two general elections to be held under the caretaker system should be accepted to save the country from an impending crisis.

 

The logic to accept the court’s recommendation to hold the next two general elections under the caretaker government is too blatantly strong for the President to miss it if he wants to save the country. The ruling party is in no power or position to impose its will on the people without pushing the country towards a disaster with less than 40% of support among the people and having failed to deliver on its major election   promises.

 

Collected :

Unaccounted for: enforced disappearances and other issues

Enforced disappearances should not be confused with kidnappings or abductions or people who go ‘missing’.  Even though the latter are all serious criminal offences, enforced disappearances are far more serious and are even considered crimes against humanity, and rightly so.

Delwar Hossain is a 30 year old trader of trader of scrap paper, metal and plastic, who lives in Madaripur municipality. His family alleges that at around 9.30 pm on  June 23, 2011 Delwar was taken away by some people who identified themselves as members of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) from the boat terminal of Gachbaria market at Mostofapur. There were witnesses who saw Delwar being taken, but who refrained from approaching the men, after being shown RAB identity cards.

Thirty-two year old Mohammad Jamal Ahmed from Tongi Model Thana, Gazipur went to the ‘Dhaka Electric Supply Company’ situated in Cheragali Squib Road for a new electricity connection for his home on the afternoon of May 4, 2011. When he approached the gate of the company, some people identifying themselves as law enforcement officers, took him away. Jamal is a vital witness in the murder of Ahsanullah Master, former Member of Parliament (MP) from Gazipur.

Habibur Rahman Haoladar is a 48 year old fishmonger of Bagerhat district. At around 5.30 am on July 6, 2011, the police of the local police station, members of the Armed Police Battalion, and District Detective Branch (DB) police, with the help of some local people, arrested him from his house. The local police later denied involvement in his arrest and claimed that he had some influential enemies who may have abducted him wearing police uniform.  However, his daughter recognised one of the men as being the sub inspector of the local police station.

 The three men have nothing in common except for the fact that they were taken away by men claiming to belong to law enforcement agencies.  Some of these men were not in uniform, but in civilian dress; some allegedly showed identity cards; some were recognized as local police officers.  Law enforcement deny involvement in these incidents of enforced disappearances, but the questions remain, as people start to doubt the credibility of law enforcement and resort to mob violence and taking the law in their own hands; and as families of those who ‘disappear’ receive little assistance from the police.

In order to clear the confusion as to what entails ‘enforced disappearance’, we need to look to the international definition of this crime, so as not to confuse it with the crimes of ‘abduction’ or ‘kidnapping’. In order to give a lucid understanding of the issue, I have taken the liberty of breaking down Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, to make it more understandable: Thus, the term ‘enforced disappearance’ is: the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person,

which places such a person outside the protection of the law. 

Thus, enforced disappearances should not be confused with kidnappings or abductions or people who go ‘missing’.  Even though the latter are all serious criminal offences, enforced disappearances are far more serious and are even considered crimes against humanity, and rightly so. The confusion as to who perpetrated the crime, the lack of assistance given to the family of the disappeared and the reluctance of the law enforcement to offer any insight or assistance, all ensure that this crime against humanity continues with impunity and that the families of the disappeared are denied justice and denied the knowledge of where the victim is.  In such a crime, there is no closure till the victim is recovered.  Sometimes, as in the case of Kalpana Chakma, the closure never comes.

However, enforced disappearances are not a new phenomenon in the history of Bangladesh.  During the Liberation War, many notable intellectuals were abducted and their whereabouts remained unknown till their bodies were found. After liberation, the crime continues under various regimes.

Criminal Law in Bangladesh has no provisions for the crime of enforced disappearance, just as it has none for the crime of torture. However, there are penal provisions for crimes such as abduction, wrongful confinement, murder and grievous hurt.  The Code of Criminal Procedure lays down all the paths to be taken to ensure a proper investigation and prosecution. There is, however, a hitch; since criminal procedure also has it that government sanction is required prior to suing a public servant.  As a result, it is difficult to make accountable, law enforcement officers, for crimes amounting to torture, ill treatment and other violations to human rights. If that is the case, does that mean that public servants are above the law? If a public servant commits a crime, he becomes a common criminal. He has no more right to call himself a servant of the people, and in my humble opinion, he should be treated in the court just as any other criminal is treated – with no need for the government to stew about whether he ought to be tried or not.

The Government of Bangladesh has ratified the Convention against Torture, but has yet to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Article 4 of the Convention states: ‘Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under its criminal law.’  Article 3 obliges member states to take measures to investigate acts of enforced disappearance, committed by persons or groups of persons acting without the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the State and to bring those responsible to justice. So it does not matter who perpetrated the crime of enforced disappearance – it is the State responsibility to investigate and bring to justice all perpetrators. Clause 2 of Article 6 also states that no order or instruction from any public authority, civilian, military or other, may be invoked to justify an offence of enforced disappearance.

As one can infer from the international definition of ‘enforced disappearance’, the perpetrator does not have to be an agent of the State to be liable. The crime could also be perpetrated by a ‘group of persons’ acting with the acquiescence of the State.  Even though the Government of Bangladesh has not acceded to the Convention, given the attention and activism recently generated by the human rights community around enforced disappearances, and the statements issues by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the State is now in no position to deny that it does not know that the crime is being perpetrated and thus it has a high level of responsibility to ensure that this crime is controlled, put to a stop and the perpetrators taken to task. It also has the responsibility to return those who have been disappeared to their families – in whatever condition.

Successive governments of this country have ratified most of the major international instruments – including the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture.  That does not mean that torture and cruel and degrading treatment has vanished from the country or that the government has made any serious drive to eliminate the practice.  It has also ratified CEDAW, the convention to eliminate discrimination against women and the convention that protects the rights of the child.  That does not mean that violence against women is taken into very serious consideration or that the rights of street children are protected and they are cared for by the state. More recently, the state finally ratified the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court – but that does not mean that any VIP will be taken to the court any time soon.  Then why sign, ratify or accede to these international standards and guidelines?  Why not?  It shows that the state has taken note of violations of human rights and has the commitment to do something to rectify matters, when and if it can. Acceding to the International Convention for the Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance will add to the commitment of Bangladesh – the same commitment it showed when it ratified the other international conventions; when it was elected to the Human Rights Council for two successive terms ; and when it decided to put in place a National Human Rights Commission. Signing an international human rights instrument does not mean that the violation will disappear overnight, but it does add to the state’s commitment to do something to rectify the matter and control it.

Reports of enforced disappearances, regardless of who perpetrated the crime, are becoming a common topic in the news papers.  Almost as common as the issue of torture and deaths in ‘cross fire’, which seems to have ‘mysteriously’ taken a back seat.  The media and human rights defenders must continue to investigate and highlight all these issues, to ensure that no one loses out on a fair trial.  As a signatory to many important international human rights conventions, and a member of the UN Human Rights Council, it would be, in my humble eyes, in the best interest of the Government of Bangladesh to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, in order to further its commitment to preserve, protect and enhance the human rights of the people of Bangladesh, to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial and to maintain its balance on the path to effective democracy and democratic practices.

Collected :

Govt missteps put burden on people

While the government may have indeed succeeded in increasing power production and the supply of power to the national grid, its errant policies in trying to achieve the increase may very well deprive people in the end of enjoying the access to power. The Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday, as reported in a news item published in New Age on Friday, increased retail power price by a staggering 20.67 per cent, in two phases, starting December and February next year. Only last February, the government had increased the retail price of power by five per cent. After the changes, the five power distribution agencies will be realising Tk 5.02 on an average up from Tk 4.16 in November. It is pertinent to remember that the government in November hiked the bulk price of power by 33.57 per cent to cut down on government subsidy to the power sector and the present retail power price hike is an effect and continuation of the bulk rise. Since February, bulk power price has already gone up by 57.81 per cent. The government is indeed putting an unprecedented level of burden on retail users of power, within a very short time in which none of the income indicators of ordinary people have improved, and the fear is, over the next of couple of years, bulk prices will see further large scale increases, all of which will later fall upon retail consumers. The BERC has indeed stated its intentions, according to previous reports published in New Age, to double retail power prices in three years time.

The power price hikes, as is common knowledge by now, is being done to cut subsidy to the power sector, which has reached unbelievable proportions ever since the incumbents assumed power and decided to go fuel-oil powered rental power plants to increase the supply of power in the country. Till date, the government has approved 18 quick rental power plants since January 2009. In the first fiscal year of the incumbents assuming power, the expenditure of the Power Development Board alone shot up by 343 per cent.      According to a report published in New Age in November this year, the government spent a staggering Tk 4,000 crore in the preceding 14 months to subsidise rental power plants. According to another New Age report in December, while Tk 30 billion has been allocated as fuel oil subsidy in the budget for this fiscal year, the finance ministry has estimated that the subsidy will eventually stand at Tk. 110 billion.

Needless to point out, these subsidies are causing a huge burden on the public exchequer and foreign currency reserve, as a result of rising import bills accrued through the import of fuel oils, and in effect, has virtually jeopardised the economy. At the retail end, the power price increases are having an adverse impact on the general price index, and inflation in the country has been hovering around the 12 per cent mark over the last six months – one of the highest in Asia.

The government has belatedly decided in December to not go for any more rental power plants, however, it would seem, given that the country’s fuel oil consumption is slated to go up by 33 per cent even this year, the damage has already been done. Under the circumstances, the government would be well-advised to take steps to phase out its dependence on rental plants and reinvest in power plants in the public sector, something that has been sorely missing from their agenda.

Collected :

Does president have power to appoint CEC, EC members?

While commencing a dialogue with political parties on Thursday at Bangabhaban, President Zillur Rahman in his written speech stated: "You are perhaps also aware that the constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh in article 118 dealing with formation of the Election Commission, empowers the president to appoint the chief election ommissioner and other election commissioners."

He further stated that he wants to take a decision on this matter upon holding discussions with the leaders of major political parties.

However, we observed some serious anomalies between the president's claim and the provisions of the constitution. 

The president in his written speech referred to article 118 of the constitution as the source of his power to appoint the EC. 

But article 118 cannot be read in isolation from the constitution's article 48 (3) that clearly says: "In the exercise of all his functions, save only that of appointing the Prime Minister pursuant to clause (3) of article 56 and the Chief Justice pursuant to clause (1) of article 95, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister." 

Even in these two cases, his discretionary power is very nominal. Because he has no option but to appoint the leader of the majority party in parliament as the prime minister. 

And in case of the appointment of chief justice, the president is expected to appoint the senior most judge of the Appellate Division. 

When article 118 is read along with article 48 (3), it becomes clear that the president's claim that the constitution empowers him to appoint the CEC and other EC members is misconstrued. 

His statement that after discussions with political leaders he "will decide…" is also beyond his power, as he must act on the advice of the prime minister in all cases except the two mentioned above.

It is only natural that the president's written statement was drafted by his staff. So we want to ask did the president's staff do their homework, and are they well versed in the constitution? 

We feel that the president was misguided in this matter which should be immediately looked into, as otherwise the president might be dragged into unnecessary and undesirable controversies that must be avoided to maintain the prestige of the high office that he holds. 

Source :