What is the problem in wanting free and fair elections?

Two headlines appeared on the same day: ‘No alternative to national dialogue: Eminent persons’ and ‘AL and BNP unwilling to compromise and make adjustments’. These two headlines reveal how deep and serious the present political crisis and the uncertainty of the forthcoming election has become. On the same day another unsavoury and absurd headline appeared –a threat to pour uranium over the heads of those who agitate too much. This reminds one of the distasteful remarks made by General Ershad’s deputy prime minister Shah Moazzem Hossain, when the nineties' movement was at its peak.

After the first two headlines even if some vestige of hope is left for the forthcoming election, peace and democracy, the third headline is most likely to dash such hope to the ground.

We have not heard anyone, not even any political party, say that they do not want the election on time. The conflict has been over how the election is to be. More or less everyone says they want fair and free elections. But the conflict has arisen over the loss of any value of the votes in the last two elections. In 2014 the ruling party's majority was ascertained even before anyone cast their votes in the election that was participated only by the ruling party and a few of its allies.

Then, even after the movement for elections under a caretaker government, a dialogue took place and everyone took part in the election under the ruling party government. But just the voters didn’t even have to go to the polling centres, no contestants other than those of the ruling party, had the chance to go to the voting centres. A former minister who had been a partner of the government, openly admitted that he himself didn’t get the chance to cast a vote.

Given the experience of these past two elections, it has become especially important to hold fair, free and impartial elections. That is why it is not just the anti-government elements who are calling for a democratically supported election, but the international community too, first and foremost the United States. In formal talks with the foreigners, the prime minister and other ministers, on behalf of the government, have tried to say that the government will hold a fair and free election, but that must be under the constitution.

The government has even expressed its irritation at times over the call by the foreign quarters for fair elections. But this time upon her return from the US, the prime minister posed the question as to why, after the country is advancing economically, was there suddenly this fuss over free, fair and impartial elections. She said she suspected that there was a move to disrupt the election. Naturally the question arises as to why there should be any objection to wanting a free, fair and impartial election. Unless they have plans to stage the election at their will in their own manner, there should be no reasons for any such objection.

It is not just the opposition that rejects the ruling party’s stance regarding the election. Almost everyone in the civil society, those who are not actively involved in any political party, or not beneficiaries of the government, are worried about a staged election and are opposed to it. Just two days ago, at a seminar of Dhaka Tribune – ‘Politics is broken: How do you fix it?’ – the country’s top-ranking economist Rehman Sobhan said that when a party comes to power, it appoints persons of its own liking as judges, vice chancellors, and in the law enforcement agencies and the administration. When a different party comes to power, it does the same. This has been going on down the years. As a result, an independent and credible system hasn’t been established, How can a free and fair election be held under such circumstances?

Professor Rehman Sobhan went on to say that as the entire system has been politicised and the institutions do not carry out their constitutional duties, there remain questions concerning a credible election. There had been a consensus among political parties about continuing a caretaker government system. He said that the problems for which the caretaker government system emerged, still exist.

While the ruling party may not admit this, they have failed to come up with a credible alternative. They had the chance in 2018, but in the flurry to grab all power, they couldn’t control themselves and ruined that opportunity.

While they claim that there is no scope to do anything outside of the constitution, that constitution has been amended in such a manner that to has removed all risks of the ruling party to lose power. In 2008 Awami League did not want any mandate to amend the constitution and, without any mandate it avoided the recommendations of the parliamentary committee and went ahead to amend the constitution. It other words, it is the various one-sided steps taken by the ruling party that has aggravated the crisis. That is why they should take initiative to resolve it. Instead they want to douse the heads of the opposition leaders in uranium. Earlier they had threatened that the opposition men wouldn’t be allowed into Dhaka. The police chimed in, saying no one would be allowed to hold rallies in Dhaka without permission. Of course, Awami League has no problem in getting permission to erect stages in the middle of the streets and hold rallies. The police can always say that this was a peace rally.

Everyone is fearing clashes and such fears are not baseless. The question is, who will benefit if the situation turns volatile? We have learnt heard that the European Union will not be sending observers to the election. Now if the US observers also do not come because of security concerns, then it will be easy to escape surveillance of the foreign quarters. That’s how it was in the last two elections.

In the last two elections, observers of the government liking came, that too mostly from the neighbouring country. They found no fault. It must be pointed out here that many analysts and journalists of the neighbouring country sharply criticise the US policy concerning Bangladesh’s elections. They have highlighted such criticism not just in the India media, but at an international level too. Mihir Sharma of Delhi’s Observer Foundation wrote in a recent article published in Bloomberg and Washington Post that if pressure is applied for free and elections, the anti-government forces will grow strong and fundamentalist forces may come to power. It is clear from this contention that they feel fair elections means a change in government, not a renewal of the ruling party’s mandate.

In the backdrop of what sort of election we want and how it is to be held, political scientist Rounaq Jahan highlights another important element other than dialogue for this. She says there is need for political and legal reforms to resolve the existing political crisis. But legal reforms alone won’t resolve the problem. They can be an understanding between the two major parties that they will not annihilate the other when they ascend to power. The question is, will we ever get to hear a pledge to end politics of vengeance?

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