Despicable consequence of autocracy's centralised power

A sharp reaction was quite predictable regarding the reported comment made by the president regarding the resignation of autocrat Sheikh Hasina, who fled in the face of the student people's uprising. The statement made during his address to the nation on 5 August and the statement made during a recent conversation with the chief editor of Manabzamin, Matiur Rahman Chowdhury, are contradictory -- needless to say one of the statements is untrue. The explanation made by his office after this controversy cropped up is unclear and ambiguous. Even in his latest statement, he didn't admit that he had lied to Matiur Rahman Chowdhury, nor did he say that he had been misquoted.

If the president had lied about accepting the resignation letter on 5 August, that certainly is an extremely serious matter. After all, that information was presented in his address to the nation. Then again, if he lied during his conversation with the chief editor of Manabzamin, then the people may well ask him why was he wanting to stir up controversy at a time when the interim government was trying to fix things and restore order. The major reason why his motives are being questioned is that he was nominated a president by Sheikh Hasina. He himself had said that until the moment he was summoned to Ganabhaban and told to sign the nomination letter, no one had an inkling that he was going to receive Awami League nomination as president.

We all know very well how controversial his election had been. There are all reasons to believe that had Sheikh Hasina not held absolute power at the time, his election would surely have been declared illegal. Many may not remember the writ placed in court challenging the legitimacy of the circular that declared him elected as president unopposed on 22 February last year. If our Supreme Court had been able to function as an independent institution without party influence, then the questions raised concerning two issues would have been enough to disqualify him as president. He should not have qualified as president as he had served as a member of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Also, the election commission declared him president before the election schedule's deadline for withdrawing candidature. This is a violation of the election code.

The Students against Discrimination are now demanding the resignation of the president. They have set a deadline for this too. However, questions have arisen. If the president wants, to whom will he hand over his resignation, how will he resign? And if he doesn't resign, how can he be removed? After all, according to the constitutional rules, the president tenders his resignation to the Speaker. But there is no parliament now and the Speaker has resigned. And the power for impeachment of a president lies with the parliament, but the parliament does not exist.

This prevailing crisis is a pitiful and despicable consequence of an autocratic system. Over the past one and a half decades, there has been the practice of establishing singular authority by centralising power after being elected through a democratic election. This shut all doors to normal ways of change. It was Awami League that had been the most vocal about constitutional matters after establishing a monopoly of power, because the constitution had been amended in such a manner that in no way could the authority of the autocratic ruler be curbed. No one  would be able to have a share in power. The office of deputy prime minister was removed. The post of vice president was removed after the fall of the autocrat Ershad, even though the post of vice president had been much valued in the constitutional handover of power from Ershad.

After the fall of military dictator General Ershad, the authority of one single individual had been the major factor in both Awami League and BNP. And so both parties were against annulling Article 70 of the constitution. They have always been haunted with the fear of losing power. They were against this because then they would not be able to hold on to power if members of parliament left the party or rebelled. And yet ever since the constitution was authored in independent Bangladesh, it has been this Article 70 that has obliged members of parliament to sacrifice their consciences.

There had been strong debate over this provision even in 2007 during the military-backed caretaker government. That year a programme called 'Bangladesh Shonglap' (Bangladesh dialogue), organised by BBC, would be held every week at the Bangladesh-China Friendship International Conference Centre in Sher-e-Bangla Nagar of the capital. Generally speaking, before the programme would begin, invited members of the panel would meet in a small room there and discuss things over a cup of tea. On one such occasion, two of the guests, neither of them who are living today, got into such a heated debate over Article 70 that we were totally taken aback. One of them had been an advisor of the caretaker government, lawyer Mainul Hosein, and the other was Awami League leader Matia Chowdhury, who passed away last week. Matia Chowdhury argued that this article had been introduced to the 1972 constitution due to the experience of Pakistan times when MPs were bought and sold and the government would fall at the drop of a hat.

Known as the fiery 'Agni Kanya' due to her role in the movement for democracy as a student, Matia Chowdhury went on to become Awami League's deputy leader in parliament. But she never made any effort to prevent her party chief from becoming authoritarian. Quite to the contrary, she would encourage her and assist her to become excessively empowered. The integrity and sacrifices of her personal life or her dedication during her student life, lost all value due to her becoming an abettor and partner of autocratic rule.

None of our politicians take any positive lessons from the politics of other countries, or they are unable to do so. Take Sri Lanka, for example. In 2014, Maithripala Sirisena expressed his differences and walked out of Mahinda Rajapaksa's party to form a new political party. He challenged his former leader, formed a new party and defeated Rajapaksa to be elected president.

There is much doubt as to whether there is any possibility at all of anyone anytime soon emerging to retrieve Awami League from the pitiful predicament of its one leader, one party and one country policy. It may be recalled that foreign diplomats and analysts for about one decade have been questioning who would be the leader in Awami League after Sheikh Hasina, or what would happen to the party? They perhaps did not foresee her being toppled from power, but the question may have been asked in concern of unforeseen circumstances of her becoming unable or her passing away.

Unfortunately, aiding and abetting autocratic rule was not restricted to Awami League alone. Along with all its minor partners of the 14 Party alliance, the more or less mid-level Jatiya Party was a forerunner in this regard. In exchange of some benefits, they remained loyal to Awami League throughout the decade. That is why the dismay and anger of the party's present head hardly evokes any sympathy.

Then there were certain so-called progressive parties that were not in alliance with Awami League, nor supported it directly, but are still liable for the present state of affairs. Expressing their concern about leaping from the frying pan into the fire, they obstructed any initiative for a national unity to thwart the rise of autocracy. They cannot deny indirectly lending support to extend the autocratic rule. Now they are desperately struggling for the very existence of their parties. It is now to be seen just how actively they lend their support to consolidate the change that has been brought about by means of the mass uprising.

* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist

* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir