Governance structure has become monopolised

We assessed the entire process on the standards of good political practice and ethics. The bottom line of good governance is accountability. If the people have confidence in the government, or if the government is acceptable to the people, then the first fundamental step of the government’s accountability is met. The government belongs to the people, according to our constitution. On the basis of the people’s mandate, the government works in accordance with the powers bestowed upon it by the people. That is why the confidence of the people comes to the forefront. It is to be seen in the days to come how far the policy framework, laws and institutions reflect the aspirations of the people. Secondly, how far are the policy frameworks, the legal frameworks and the institutions accountable to the people.

There are three aspects to this. First of all, there will be controversy. Perhaps there always will be. This will remain a part of history. The matter of good governance does not depend on this election alone. A structure of governance has emerged in Bangladesh through a long process. The fundamental components of accountability are there on paper. However, these are hardly in effect. And now added to that anew is the government structure becoming monopolized. This cannot be denied. The majority of those who have been elected are candidates of the ruling party. Those who were independent, are also members of the ruling party. Their identities, politics, everything is of the ruling party. And all the rest are also supporters of the ruling party. Only a few are outside of this circle. When such a huge part of the parliament is in the hands of one party, there is no scope not to call that a monopoly. Before coming to the issue of how far the people’s aspirations will be reflected, the fact remains that there is no framework for accountability whatsoever.

When it comes to the parliament, the parliament only functions when it has representation of the people. Its function is to prepare and reform laws and, most importantly, to hold the government accountable. There is no chance of any of these three being realised. After all, there is no checks and balance in this government. The success of the parliament depends upon whether the members of parliament can rise above their party identity and carry out their responsibilities. We can only hope for this, but there is doubt whether there is any possibility at all of this happening.

TIB has carried out a series of studies on the election commission. We also carried out tracking on the past two elections. We sat separately with the election commission. The election commission has the constitutional authority to hold a free, credible and inclusive election. And all institutions including the government are legally bound to cooperate with the election commission. In the past two elections a crisis had emerged regarding the participation of all parties. This time the crisis has been more acute. We needn’t go to the issue of what BNP says about a non-partisan caretaker government. No matter what name we may give an election-time government, it can be ensured that its role is impartial and free of vested interest. The election commission could have pinpoint the reasons why it is not possible for the government to be neutral or free of vested interests, or the reasons why confidence cannot be generated, and the propose certain legal changes or reforms to this end. Had the commission done this, at least they would have the self-confidence that they were able to meet the aspirations of the people.

We met them directly and placed these specific proposals before them. The commission said that the proposals were logical and they would look into whether these could be raised. They did not do so. Not only that, but on various occasions the election commission has played a controversial and contradictory role. Ranking at the top of the list of challenges identified by the election commission, was to being the opposition to the election. If that challenge was before them, then what should they have done? They should have discussed an election time government framework with the government. They did not take up this opportunity or they simply evaded it. They used the excuse of obligations. They said that they did not have any alternatives. We want to point out that the election commission did not use the opportunity it had to play its due role.

The election commission can best say why they did not do so. There were a few debatable amendments of the Representation of the People Order. But overall, the election commission failed to display the moral courage and strength of mind required to properly use the authority bestowed upon it by the constitution. They may have been under some sort of pressure and there were indications of this too. They may have felt powerless, but did not want to admit this. They took the liability upon themselves.

There are legal provisions to cancel candidature if there is excessive incorrect or inadequate information in the affidavit, if information is concealed or if the candidate has wealth beyond known sources of income. It is easy to take action before the election, but the election commission can take action even after the election. The election commission, however, cannot do this alone. The National Board of Revenue and the Anti-Corruption Commission must be involved too.

Everyone has the right to participate in politics, whether a businessperson, actor, sportsperson or any profession. No one will obstruct that. There is no scope for us to question that either. What is to be taken note of, though, is whether they are exercising democratic practice before they enter politics, or do then come by direct nomination of the party. Among those elected this time, 65 per cent are politicians. Many are politicians whose main profession is business. That is quite possible. But then there are the 'intruders', meaning to say many are not entering through the normal political process.

The election commission should release the detailed specifics of its expenditure. Expenditure will increase to an extent from 2018. Prices have gone up in the last five years, but there is a limit to expenditure. Expenditure has gone up threefold. It is still being calculated. As a constitutional institution, the national election commission has the obligation to release details on how much has been spend in various sectors.

We got the information from the constituencies under TIB's study. This matches the information in the media. The government and the election commission too had said that voter presence was imperative. Participatory elections were interpreted as participation of the voters. Accordingly, the government had set a target for 50 per cent voter turnout. The election commission, though, had maintained that even if one per cent of the voters were cast, there would be no legitimacy problem. Many of the government employees, some on their own accord and some unofficially ordered, went to the voting centres. Many were told they would not receive benefits if they did not go. Those under the social safety net were even threatened that they would be deprived of their allowances.

I see no logic in this. To put it bluntly, over the past decade and a half, our GDP has increased. We have had socioeconomic development. But the basic problem is, say our GDP has increased by 7 per cent. Official records show that if even if we could have a medium prevention of corruption, our GDP would go up by three per cent, that means, growth would be 10 per cent. The socioeconomic influence of corruption is there before our eyes, but we do not see it. There is a discriminatory component within corruption. Corruption is a disease that deprives people of their dues. If we just look at corruption in the service sector, we will see that 74 per cent of those who fail to avail the service they seek, say they could not pay the bribe that was demanded.

If BNP was in power today, they would say that TIB is pro-Awami League. We are not pro anyone. We are impartial. We have a single objective, to establish people's administration. I do not believe everyone who is connected with the machinery from where the propaganda comes, is in consensus. We are a thorn in the flesh for anyone who comes to power at any point of time. Then again, we are the darling of the opposition. Criticism is not tolerated in our culture.

I always have hope. Without hope, I would have left this work long ago. Our work had led to many laws being enacted, many policies being formulated. There was the National Integrity Strategy, the Anti-Corruption Commission and more. Perhaps the desired results haven't been achieved as yet. It would wrong to determine the success of TIB's work by assessing how far corruption has been controlled in Bangladesh. We do not have the power to control and that is not our work either. We are not the police, or any judge or ACC. Our duty is to create an environment so that these entities can properly execute their responsibilities. Unfortunately, the institutions upon whom the duty to prevent corruption has been bestowed, are themselves partners in corruption.

I went to Dhaka University a few days ago. A girl stood up and said, "Sir I am a student of political science and I study the constitution. I know it off by heart. But I do not find myself anywhere in the constitution." The youth want change. They say that resisting corruption is the Second World War to them.

Thank you too.