National election not mere formality

A powerful quarter of the government said their victory in the next national election is mere a formality. In the face of severe criticism, the party clarified that the people are extending their support to them as they have done so well over the last ten years. If a political party is highly popular, the party is supposed to go to power by winning the elections. In that perspective, the statement is fine. But the question arises, how is the this popularity to be assessed? There is an institutional mechanism to do so and that is the election commission.

Political parties campaign round the clock to win the election. The mass media is used. Foreign observers play a role. The civil and military administrations under the leadership of the election commission are also involved in the process. A election must follow certain formalities, but in no way can any quarter claim that their winning in the election is mere a formality.

The explanation given over the statement is questionable too. Although the ruling party has been campaiging with public money, their main opponent is out of the process. It is uncertain what scope the main opposition will get to launch their election campaign. Even their peaceful programmes are being obstructed. Their leaders are being detained. They have been barred from rallies on the excuse that this obstructs the streets. This would have been acceptable if the rule applied to all, but that is not the case. It is imperative to allow the opposition to hold public meetings and rallies at least on the weekend.

The national election is supposed to be held in December or January. There should be no need to add the adjectives 'participatory', 'peaceful' and 'fair' when referring to the elections. After all, that should be given. These adjectives are used in some cases, when the election is not participatory, peaceful or fair. The people are doubtful whether the election will actually be held. The political parties are also apprehensive. Our development partners and western countries want democracy to flourish in this country. They inspire us. It is also necessary to raise our image in the international arena. The democratically elected government can strongly bargain with other nations. Otherwise, the opposite happens.

While keeping the principal opposition party out of the process, the ruling party claims that their popularity reached to the peak. They also say it is a mere formality to win in the next election. Many people involved in the election process may be confused. The assessment of the ruling party may be based on logic. It may be possible they would will go to power again through a fair election. In parliamentary democracy, it is not unusual that a political party or a prime minister remains in power for long. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister for 17 years at a stretch. The Congress ruled the country several decades. The left front ran the state government in West Bengal for 34 years. So this can happen in our country.

On the flip side, many rulers who made massive contribution to their countries, lost power. After winning the World War 11, Churchill was defeated in the UK election. Despite earning tremendous success in the war against Pakistan over the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, Indira Gandhi lost power in the next election. She even could not become the member in the lower house. Despite winning the Middle East war in 1991, US president Bush (senior) was defeated in the next election. So it is not so easy to calculate what the people will consider when casting their votes.

Parliamentary democracy has been passing through fragile times. It is being hampered again and again. The claim that autocracy ended in 1990 has faded. That fallen autocrat is now part of the government and the ousted party is the official opposition in the parliament. The former autocrat now dreams of forming the government through the next election. There is nothing called impossible in the politics. After an acceptable election in 1991, a controversial election was held in February of 1996. That parliament was transitory and the caretaker government system was introduced at that time at the demand of the current ruling party. Under the system, another election was held in 1996. And the 2001 election was acceptable.

In 2004, the constitution was amended to increase the retirement age of judges to gain support of the caretaker government. At the end of the tenure of the government in 2006, being instigated by the then ruling party, the president took over the responsibility of chief adviser of the caretaker government. But everything did not go well. The much discussed 1/11 arrived on the scene. A flawless list of voters with photos was created. The national election was held at the end of 2008. The party that came to power through the election scrapped the caretaker government system from the constitution on the basis of a court verdict. Staying in power, the ruling Awami League held an election in 2014. The principal opposition party boycotted the polls. A total of 153 members of parliament (MPs) were elected unopposed. The people are well aware of the type of elections held in other constituencies. Those in power, retained power. However, there is a parliament. There is a ruling party and there is an official opposition party. It would not be untrue to say that the winning of the ruling party is mere a formality if they consider the elections held in February of 1996 and in 2014.

However, the people want that fair election. The government and the election commission have to create a favourable environment for polls. The commission is adamant not interfere before the announcement of the election schedule. If that is so, they can announce the election schedule six months ahead of the election. That is the jurisdiction of the election commission. The commission has already started preparations. Under the existing system, an absolutely level playing field is not possible. A successful election cannot be expected with the main opposition party kept at bay.

The national election is not the same as the local government election. Some city corporation elections and by-elections can not be the model of the national election. Voting will be held in 300 constituencies on a single day. The number of voters is 100 million while the number of polling stations is 50,000. Security measures are inadequate. Serious politicisation of the administration and police force may have a negative influence on the election process. So the election commission has to reshuffle the administration and police department ahead of the election. The commission has to take steps to stop use of muscle power in the election. Many have suggested empowering EC officials into returning officers. It seems the move may not yield any good results. The existing administrative system has presented four successful elections since 1991. It organised two controversial elections. If the government considers their victory as mere a formality, then it seems that the people will have no role in determining the results. We hope such apprehensions be proved wrong.

*This piece, originally published in Prothom Alo print edition, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam.