In the last two and half years, as the contestations between the two opposing political forces of the country, one led by the Awami League (AL), and the other by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), about the organisation of the tenth parliamentary election could not be resolved peacefully through dialogue, and escalated into violent confrontation, we began to again worry about the future of our democracy.
The high hopes of democratic renewal, which was kindled after the 2008 parliamentary elections that ended a two year rule by a military-backed “caretaker” government, began to fade away.
We not only witnessed the failure of the two opposing sides to come to an agreement on the modalities of a poll-time government overseeing the elections, we also saw unprecedented violence unleashed on the ordinary citizens by one of the alliance partners of the BNP, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) whose main agenda was to thwart the trials of the war crimes of 1971.
Despite the BNP-led alliance’s repeated threats to boycott and prevent the holding of the tenth parliamentary elections, and months of mayhem and destruction, the AL-led alliance government did succeed to hold a one-sided parliamentary elections on January 5, 2014. Prior to the elections, many members of the government said the elections had to be organised to meet the constitutional requirement of organising the parliamentary elections within the five year term limit.
The BNP led alliance did not participate in the elections leaving to the AL-led political forces to divide the 300 seats in the parliament among themselves.
Even before the elections were held on January 5, 2014 a record 153 members of parliament (MP) were declared winners as they were uncontested in their constituencies. After ensuring the majority in the tenth parliament without having a single vote cast, the government organised elections to the remaining 147 seats on January 5, 2014, which attracted little voter interest resulting in low voter turnout.
One alliance partner of the AL, the Jatya party (JP) could be persuaded to play the role of the opposition in parliament, but the JP still insisted to remain as part of the government and was rewarded with three ministerial posts in the cabinet.
After the election, each of the two opposing political forces has attempted to portray the elections as a “victory” for its side. The AL led forces have argued that the mere organisation of the elections, no matter the flaws, was a victory as they were able to overcome all the obstacles created by the opposition.
The BNP led forces, on the other hand, have claimed victory pointing out the lack of credibility of the elections organised by the government. They argued that they were right in their claim that the AL-led government cannot be trusted to organise a fair and credible election.
While both sides have continued with their claims and counter-claims of victory blaming each other for undemocratic behaviour, the nation has remained shell-shocked reeling from the death and destruction caused by hartals and oborodhs called by the BNP-led opposition over many months, and the incredulous elections engineered by the AL-led government.
While debates are raging as to which side has won, it is very clear as to who has lost.
The citizens of Bangladesh have lost. They had to bear a heavy price in terms of loss of life, property, and sense of security. They were deprived of an opportunity to cast their ballot and choose who will be their representatives in the parliament. The state of our fragile and halting democracy has been dealt a grievous blow, and it will take painstaking efforts by all stakeholders to nurse it back to recovery.
Of course, as a nation we are known for our resilience – overcoming many obstacles and making many fresh starts. Since our independence in 1971, our democratic journey has not been smooth. We have often lost our direction and walked on wrong paths. Though we started as a parliamentary democracy in 1972, within four years we fell under military rule which continued for the next fifteen years (1975-1990).
However, thanks to the people’s unwavering commitment we have repeatedly succeeded in getting back to the path of democracy. In 1990, as a result of a people’s movement we were able to end military rule and renew our democratic journey. Over the next fifteen years (1991-2006) we made gradual progress in fulfilling three criteria of being classified as an electoral democracy.
First, we organised three regular free, fair and contested elections in 1991, 1996 and 2001 under a system of Non-party Caretaker Government (NCG).
Second, there was peaceful transfer of governmental power as a result of these elections.
And, third and most significantly, we were able to establish civilian control over policy and institutions.
But we stumbled in 2007 when we failed to organise the scheduled ninth parliamentary elections as the two opposing political forces could not agree on the ground rules for organising elections. We had to again witness military intervention, and the country was ruled by a military backed “caretaker” government for two years (2007-2008).
This time, however, it was very clear that the people would not tolerate a prolonged period of military rule. The military was also sensitive to the people’s mood. Within two years, the military backed government organised a free and credible parliamentary elections on December 29, 2008, and handed over power to the democratically elected government. This voluntary transfer of power from a de facto military government to an elected civilian government was unprecedented in South Asian history.
The ninth parliamentary elections organised by the military backed government was widely acclaimed by national and international observers as the freest in the country’s history. The election commission (EC) prepared a new voters list discarding the names of approximately 12.2 million bogus voters. New guidelines were introduced controlling election expenses and election related violence. This encouraged nomination and election of a record number of relatively clean candidates, and also a good number of women. Voter turnout was nearly 87%.
The AL-led grand alliance won 262 parliamentary seats thus securing more than three-fourth majority in parliament. The BNP-led political opposition won only 34 seats.
We had hoped that one of the first priorities of the AL-led grand alliance government would be to work out a formula for a poll-time government that would be acceptable to all major political parties so that we would not have to face uncertainties regarding elections again as we did earlier in 1995-1996 and 2006.
However, the government pushed through the fifteenth amendment of the constitution in June 2011 abolishing the NCG system in the face of strong opposition from the BNP-led forces.
As a consequence, from mid-2011 onwards, we were again faced with a situation when the two main political forces of the country took opposing stands regarding the poll-time government; the AL-led government arguing in favour of the incumbent elected political government going into a caretaker mode, and the BNP-led forces arguing for the continuation of the NCG system instituted by the 13th amendment of the constitution in 1996.
The two sides could not come to any negotiated settlement despite repeated appeals by concerned Bangladeshi citizens and international organisations.
Finally, we witnessed a very flawed tenth parliamentary elections, and we face a risk of not being classified even as an electoral democracy.
In 2014, we appear to be again at a crossroads, needing to make another fresh start to sustain our democratic process.
It will be pertinent to ask at this point, why are we having so many breakdowns? Why is our democratic journey not one of linear progress? There is no easy answer. We can identify many causes for our repeated set backs. However, the primary focus here, is on the argument that our fresh starts have floundered because we have failed to break away from the undemocratic practices of the past.
Let me now elaborate what are some of our undemocratic practices that have continued to bedevil our democratic process.
The challenge of breaking away from past undemocratic practices
Over the last 42 years we have witnessed the development of certain patterns and practices of politics and governance, which have been inimical to democracy. Some of these practices are legacies of Bangladesh’s inheritance from military rule; but some have also been spawned from the cauldron of our electoral democratic process.
Unfortunately, our elected political rulers did not repudiate many of the undemocratic practices of military rulers; instead they perpetuated and sometimes even exacerbated these practices. Let us first focus on the undemocratic practices of our military rulers which have been carried over by our elected political rulers, then highlight a few of the undemocratic practices which have become the hallmarks of our electoral democracy.
Legacy of military rule (1975-1990)
During the 15 years of rule by the two military dictators – Major General Ziaur Rahman (1975-1981) and Lieutenant General HM Ershad (1982-1990) – we witnessed monopoly control of state power by the chief executive who ruled unconstitutionally. We also saw their attempts to “civilianise” their regimes in order to attain a semblance of representative legitimacy through the process of election engineering.
Both of them floated political parties by using state patronage and intelligence agencies. In their bid to recruit support from constituencies who were opposed to the post-independent AL rule (1972-1975), the military rulers abandoned two fundamental principles enshrined by the AL in the 1972 Constitution: Secularism and Socialism. Islam was privileged as a state religion, and the practice of the political use of religion which was much favoured by Pakistan’s military dictators, was revived.
Many of the undemocratic features of military rule left a profound impact on the pattern of our politics and governance. Four major features, which have created a lasting political imprint, can be highlighted in this regard.
Unconstitutional rule
The military rule, first and foremost, left a legacy of unconstitutional rule when the control of state power was transferred not through the ballot, but through the bullet. The military first intervened on August 15, 1975, by assassinating the elected political leader, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of the nation, together with most members of his family.
After several coups and counter-coups, which resulted in the killing of many military officers and four major leaders of the AL who refused to collaborate with the military, Major General Ziaur Rahman emerged as the strongman of the regime in November, 1975.
The military assassins of Bangabandhu were constitutionally pardoned by Ziaur Rahman, and most of them were awarded with diplomatic assignments abroad. This culture of impunity bred its own malign nemesis. Ziaur Rahman himself was assassinated in another military coup in 1981.
The second military dictator, Lt General HM Ershad ruled for another eight years, but was eventually toppled from power through a peoples’ movement in 1990. During the next 15 years (1991-2006), elected political leaders ruled the country, but when they failed to agree on the ground rules for holding the scheduled parliamentary elections, and violent confrontations appeared imminent, the military again intervened in January, 2007, but this time they remained in the background. A civilian “caretaker” government, backed by the military, ruled the country for two years (2007-2008) under emergency laws.
During the first two military regimes, the country remained under Martial Law for prolonged periods when the Constitution and fundamental rights were suspended. The two military dictators changed constitutional provisions, and enacted laws through ordinances, which were later ratified by their hand-picked parliamentarians.
Many of their unconstitutional acts, including the killings, were subsequently indemnified. Thus, Ziaur Rahman pushed through the fifth amendment of the constitution in the second parliament elected in 1979, which validated all acts of the military government from 1975 to 1979. Similarly the third parliament passed the seventh amendment of the constitution in 1986, which validated the acts of HM Ershad’s military government.
This practice of lawmaking, first through executive ordinances those were later validated by the parliament, was continued even after the restoration of democracy in 1991. For example, during the tenure of the fifth parliament (1991-1996), 34% of laws passed by the parliament were first promulgated as ordinances, and were later placed before the parliament for approval.
This trend was diminished during the seventh (1996-2001) and the eighth (2001-2006) parliament, when less than 5% of the laws originated as ordinances. However, the ninth parliament (2009-2013) was again faced with the task of giving legal cover to many of the ordinances passed during the two years of the military-backed civilian government (2007-2008).
In two landmark judgements, the Supreme Court declared military rule and all acts passed by military governments as illegal. The fifth and seventh amendments of the constitution were annulled by the Supreme Court.
The parliament passed the fifteenth amendment of the constitution on June 30, 2011, which declared military takeover of government as an act of sedition.
It is to be seen whether the judgements of the Supreme Court and the fifteenth amendment of the constitution will work as effective inhibitors to prevent future extra-constitutional takeover of state power by the military.
