There must be at least one reason for the disappearance of a vibrant democratic culture within less than a generation. If a young person asks why a functional voting system is absent in today’s Bangladesh, would that be considered an unfair line of questioning?
A citizen’s point-blank reasoning may lead to finding a clue or two about a solution to what has turned out to be a prolonged political impasse. It's a crisis, no player can deny, because all social actors can’t enjoy the same right to live and pursue their dreams. Major contenders for power have disagreements on how the best atmosphere for electing people’s representatives can be restored.
Credible elections were held in the country a few terms ago, and that too under interim arrangements, none afterwards or under any party government that exceeds its five-year tenure. The democratization that started through the mass upsurge of 1990 faltered with the 1/11/2007 military takeover and the system of a non-party government that conducted an inclusive election in 1991 saw its death within two decades.
So, the current crisis began specifically with the scrapping of the caretaker government from the constitution in 2011. The annulment of such a useful system still haunts the nation.
A decade after the election-time non-party administration ceased to exist, its demand is valid to all political stakeholders, except the ones who reject fair polls as rules of the game for change in power.
Such a neutral administration is relevant to countries like ours, for a sitting prime minister or president cannot, or does not, refrain from influencing the voting results taking advantage of “no resistance” from state institutions manned with sycophants or the unprofessional. Benefits of a caretaker government, for the sake of a functioning electoral system and peaceful democratic transition, cannot be underestimated in any way, anywhere.
Had there been an election-time government in Russia, for example, Vladimir Putin would have been voted out of power by this time, and his invasion of Ukraine would most likely have never occurred. The Arab Spring might not have turned into civil wars had there been a mechanism to create a level playing field for all parties to participate in the electoral race.
Bangladesh had once developed this unique model of a caretaker government to resolve political crises by holding free, fair, and participatory elections.
The United Nations runs peacekeeping missions in many civil war-torn countries, where Bangladeshi troops play an effective role in restoring peace and order supporting the civilians. An interim government could have been useful in ensuring peaceful transfer of power in strife-stricken countries.
Unfortunately, Bangladesh can no longer boast of its innovation of the caretaker system. This model could have been developed further to phase out tensions in vulnerable democracies which try to replicate the American presidential system or British parliamentary form of government.
Bangladesh itself has not been able to come out of the political crisis ever since the caretaker system was abolished. In its absence, the country experienced two “elections” in 2014 and 2018. The country was supposed to hold two more elections under the caretaker government, if former chief justice Khairul Haque’s short verdict annulling the system was honoured by himself when he wrote the full verdict and then by ruling the Awami League (AL) during the 15th amendment to the Constitution.
Had that really happened, the political hostilities over elections might have been reduced. Such an anti-historic assumption is of no use but, practically, the crisis over acceptable elections is far from over.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and all other opposition forces boycotted the 2014 elections held under the AL regime, with more than half of Members of Parliament elected uncontested. Apparently, asked by friends at home and abroad, the BNP and other parties joined the 2018 ballot only to witness that the public mandate was hijacked in the dead of night before voting day on December 30.
Now, the opposition parties are holding a series of rallies and demonstrations demanding the formation of a non-party administration for better elections and to unseat the AL from office as well for that matter. Conspicuously, the AL, its allies, and Jamaat-e-Islami -- a subsequent BNP ally -- launched a movement against the BNP government of 1995-96 to realize their demand for the caretaker government, a system which was inserted into the constitution after a one-sided election in 1996.
The BNP under Khaleda Zia and AL under Sheikh Hasina, along with all major parties -- especially student organizations -- had fought for a free and fair election under a caretaker government, the idea of which was floated in a statement by 31 intellectuals during General Ershad’s Jatiya Party regime.
Both the two main parties won two elections each held under such interim governments -- the BNP in 1991 and 2001 and the AL in 1996 and 2008.
The non-party caretaker government (formed mainly with non-partisan technocrats) would have a political consensus if all the political parties’ opinions while in opposition, are taken into account.
Khawaza Main Uddin has been pursuing journalism for about three decades and is the winner of the UN MDG Award, DAJA Award and WFP Award.
