Difficult to be optimistic about the new Election Commission

A report on 28 February in Prothom Alo about the success of the small parties in forming the Election Commission (‘Small parties, big success’) and a similar report in the same day in Samakal ‘Small parties nail it again’, indicate that the small parties with hardly any identity of their own other than being in the ruling party camp, have created a sensation this time too.

Even though these parties are not visible in the political or election arena, it has been from their list that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kazi Habibul Awal and at least three election commissioners have been selected, reported Samakal. This creates apprehensions that this time too, by means of the ‘tried and tested’ method, this search committee’s 15 working days of ‘search’ will give us another election commission as was in 2017, when the ruling party ensured the appointments to the election commission. It’s seems to be the same story all over again!

According to a Prothom Alo report, in 2017 the ruling party followed a certain strategy which enabled them to appoint their pre-selected four – Nurul Huda, Rafiqul Islam, Kobita Khanam and Brig. Gen. Shahadat Hossain Chowdhury – to the election commission. Their strategy was to get their allies and like-minded parties to repeatedly propose the names of these four. And the names proposed the most to the search committee were included in the recommendations sent to the honourable President and these four persons, including the CEC, pre-selected by the ruling party, were appointed to the election commission.

It does not seem that qualifications, competence, reputation or disrepute played much of a role in the search committee’s recommendations of these persons. Had these factors been given any consideration, then it would never have been possible for a person like Nurul Huda of the special 1973 batch of civil servants – who never served as secretary for even a day, who faces many allegations of biased behavior, and who is extremely biased against the major opposition party and in favour of the ruling party – to be recommended for the office of CEC.

On 13 February I held these points up to the search committee. In my written statement I also mentioned the ruling party’s strategy. I said, “From the 2017 experience of appointing the election commission, three matters are very clear and deserve attention: Firstly, the ruling party had already decided in advance who would be appointed to the election commission. Secondly, the ruling party had managed to include the names of their chosen ones in the final list of the search committee to be sent to the president. Thirdly, it seems that rather than actually searching and finding the most competent persons, the search committee recommended the names that had been recommended the most times. As a result, it was possible for a relatively unknown person with the experience of a joint secretary like Nurul Huda to become CEC.”

Apparently the strategy by which the ruling party managed to appoint their pre-selected persons to the election commission in 2017, was more or less repeated this time. “This time too, most of the persons appointed to the EC were on the list of the pro-government small parties. These parties included Tarikat Federation, Jatiya Party (JP), Gonotantri Party, Bangladesher Samajtantrik Dal (BSD), National People’s Party (NPP) and Bangladesh Nationalist Front (BNF). The first four of these parties are allies of the Awami League-led 14-party alliance. Outside of these four parties, the names of those appointed in the newly formed EC appeared several times on the proposals of several parties or persons… Leaders of the 14 party alliance and pro-government leaders said they felt that the search committee gave more consideration to the names that appeared on the lists of the most parties. That happened last time too. However, this time the ruling parties strategy was basically to make ‘kingmakers’ of the small parties. (Prothom Alo, 2 March 2022)

In my statement made in front of the search committee I raised the question, does the search committee actually apply due diligence in its search? Due diligence, a term much used in the judiciary, means using utmost care and consideration in taking a decision, something which even common people apply in their daily lives. For example, job seekers taking tests in offices, being interviewed and checking references. There are questions as to what sort of investigation was carried out in appointing the new election commission and how much care and consideration was applied. Incidentally, according to media reports, the committee completed its search three days ahead of the 15 days they were given for the task.

After the first meeting of the search committee, one of the members of the committee told Ittefaq (7 February 2022) that the search committee will carry out its task in the same manner as the last committee. In this context, when presenting my statement to the search committee, I demanded that in order to eliminate the prevailing crisis of confidence, the people should be apprised of the method in which the committee carries out its search. Also, the committee should display transparency in its actions.

According to Section 4 (1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner Appointment Act 2022, the search committee is directed to maintain transparency and neutrality, and take competence and incompetence, experience, integrity and reputation into account, and then make their recommendations to the president for the past of CEC and other election commissioners. However, the committee did not make public the proposed names nor who proposed the names. I did not receive these names even after applying under the Right to Information Act.

If the committee had published the 20 names on its short list and then the 10 names on its final list along with the names of the proposers, then by means of public reaction it would have been able to asses if the persons under consideration of the committee had integrity and repute. After all, people’s perception is the only benchmark of integrity and repute. We do not comprehend why the committee sidestepped the specific directive in the law to maintain transparency. Neither do we understand why the search committee ignored the recommendations of eminent persons and recommended the names of government beneficiaries to the president.

Finally, the two election commissions formed in the past in a non-transparent manner by means of a gazette issued by the president, destroyed out electoral system and snatched away our voting rights. Their misdeeds created a lack of confidence among the people concerning the electoral process and the election commission.

Under the new law, yet again the same non-transparent process was followed to form our new election commission. Due to this lack of transparency and the questionable process in forming the commission, the prevailing lack of confidence continues in the case of the new commission. Already certain information concerning the members of the new committee has begun to surface, making it difficult to be optimistic about the future. We hope that the new commission manages to dispel such misgivings through its integrity, transparency, courage and neutrality.

* Badiul Alam Majumdar is secretary of Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (SHUJAN).

* The article, originally published in the print and online editions of Prothom Alo, has been rewritten for English edition by Ayesha Kabir