The caretaker government continues to be the main bone of contention between the Awami League and BNP. It is astonishing that despite all the pressing problems faced by the country, our most hot button political issue is the caretaker government.
I am going to dive into the history of the caretaker system because the BNP cannot take credit for a system which it spoiled.
The first caretaker government of Bangladesh was formed in 1990 on an ad hoc basis. When the caretaker government was codified in 1996, the provisions of the constitution put an emphasis on finding a neutral person acceptable to all parties to preside over the caretaker period.
In 2001, the Awami League went by the letter and spirit of the constitution. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina ensured the peaceful transfer of power to a former chief justice in line with the provisions of the constitution. This was the first peaceful transfer of power in Bangladesh which did not involve a change to the constitution.
KM Hasan saga
In 2004, the BNP deliberately changed the constitution to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years. Increasing the retirement age would ensure that KM Hasan, a former party secretary of the BNP who sat on the Supreme Court as a judge, would become the head of the next caretaker government.
This caused political uproar because KM Hasan was not a neutral person. Neutrality was the basic principle of the caretaker system.
Fiddling with the neutrality of the caretaker system was widely perceived to be part of the BNP’s plan to rig the general election. The BNP has a well-documented history of rigging elections, including rigging by-elections during its last term in office.
The Awami League denounced these moves and its protests succeeded. KM Hasan eventually expressed his reluctance to take the role.
At the time, there was widespread support for the Awami League. The mood in the country was in favour of Khaleda Zia’s resignation, which would usher in an Awami League-led coalition. Dr Kamal Hossain from Gono Forum and the 14-party alliance supported the Awami League. There was great hope for liberal democracy in the air, which was imbued with the spirit of pro-liberation forces.
Obstructing AL and public opinion
Sadly, the BNP obstructed democratic values and the public mood at the time. This was unbecoming for any democratic political party. Khaleda Zia clearly showed her contempt for democratic values. What if the BNP resigned and called an early election in which the Awami League won?
The stars seemed aligned in favour of the Awami League at the time, including for its strong anti-terror stance during the Bush administration’s global war on terror. What if a Congress-style government which won power in India in 2004 also came to power in Bangladesh? These are questions for historians to debate.
Instead, the Awami League had to end up waiting till 2009 to come to power. The BNP initially obstructed a neutral caretaker government. It then installed President Iajuddin Ahmed, an aging soil scientist, to preside over the caretaker government during a moment of constitutional crisis.
Demise of the caretaker
After Iajuddin’s failure, a state of emergency was imposed across the country in 2007. A draconian caretaker government ruled the country for two years between 2007 and 2008. The emergency was weaponized to target politicians, journalists, and the business community.
Human rights abuses, arbitrary detentions, and the suspension of constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights characterized the two-year caretaker regime.
It failed to stem the return of the Awami League, which overwhelmingly won the 2008 election. The caretaker system was abolished in 2011 because the system lost credibility in the Awami League’s eyes.
But Bangladesh is still reeling from the adverse side-effects of the last caretaker regime, including extrajudicial killings and other human rights problems.
Today, the BNP has not come remotely close to the hope generated by the Awami League for liberal democracy between 2004 and 2006. BNP has failed in its movement to restore the caretaker system.
The BNP is only promising more of the same. BNP’s culture of stifling any internal debate and criticism within its ranks and supporters reeks of fascism. BNP is no longer capable of pulling off a successful political movement, let alone a liberal democratic government.
Caretaker periods are exceptional in a democratic system. In Australia, ad hoc caretaker periods lasted for less than 30 days. During the emergency in Bangladesh, AL president Sheikh Hasina demanded elections within 90 days. The last caretaker government in Bangladesh should not have stayed in power for two years by going beyond its constitutional mandate.
Caretaker governments in different parts of the world today do not inspire much confidence. The caretaker government which recently took power in Pakistan can potentially prolong its stay beyond 90 days if elections are not held on time. The Taliban regime is styled as a caretaker government. The caretaker government in Sudan resulted in a civil war.
The Awami League is sticking to the letter and spirit of the constitution. The BNP’s fiddling with the rules-based order is now posing national security concerns. This is not the way to do politics.
Umran Chowdhury works in the legal field.
