Has the inability for a fair election led to efforts to display credibility?

At the start of the year Chief Election Commissioner Kazi Habibul Awal was heard to say, it is not enough just to hold a fair election, it must be believable that the election was fair. He said, “There must be no incorrect perception. Our liability is towards the people and the international community. We cannot undermine the international community, Bangladesh is part of the international community.” A day after this, commissioner Md Anisur Rahman said, if a free, fair and credible election is failed to be held, the state itself will fail.

It seems as if the election commission has suddenly woken up and realised that they have been bestowed with the responsibility of arranging a very important democratic exercise called election. Yet on 6 December one of the commissioners, Md Alamgir, said that there was no pressure from the foreigners on the commission and that they had no right to apply pressure either. The question is, what transpired over the past four weeks or so and what had they expected, that they are now dropping their complacence and become so concerned?

Politics has a sort of direct link to exaggerated, partially true and manipulated information. Their words are not always consistent either. They may say one thing today and quite the contrary tomorrow. Take Shahjahan Omar, for instance. Before going to jail, he went as far as dubbing Peter Haas as a saviour of democracy, a messiah.

But armed with nomination from the ruling party, he changed his tune completely. But even he has said that if 60 to 70 percent votes are not shown to be cast, sanctions will be imposed. If the same tune is heard in the voice of the persons in state institutions, particularly in constitutional offices, that is a matter of concern. That is why it is necessary to find the answers to certain questions that have arisen from the recent statements  of the chief election commissioner and other commissioners.

The first question is, why only after the election has gone into the hands of the ruling party is the statement being made that ‘it is not enough for the election to be fair, but credible too’? Of the 300 seats, will the election commission be able to show even 30 seats where ruling Awami League will have to contest against any candidate nominated by a different party?

In almost every seat we hear the candidates saying, “The ‘eagle’ symbol is same as the ‘boat’ symbol here” or “The ‘truck’ symbol is same as the ‘boat’ symbol.” Even on the ‘plough’ poster of Jatiya Party’s secretary general Mujibul Haque Chunnu it is written, ‘backed by Awami League’. In other words, no matter to whom the vote is given, it is for the ‘boat’. So Awami League’s fourth consecutive term is not only ensured but, in the true sense, 100 per cent of their seats will be theirs. This is not an assumption, but confirmed. There is no scope for it going any other way.

The CEC’s desperation to give ‘predetermined results’ the ‘credibility’ of a ‘fair election’, could have won  a degree of sympathy if it was his sense of helplessness, but when he specifically mentioned that the international community should not be given an ‘incorrect perception’, that certainly does not reflect any honest intention. When an election is in the hands of a party, can there be any space for the interests or enthusiasm of the general voters in the turf war among factions and groups? While it is primarily the government that must take the blame for the violent intra-party fights and clashes, the election commission can certainly not evade the blame either.

The law itself speaks of what the election commission could have done to prevent the ‘contest’ between the Awami League candidates and the ‘dummy’ candidates. During the scrutiny of the nomination papers it became clear that Awami League was violating the party constitution to give approval to persons with party posts to contest in the election against the candidate nominated by the party, so that the election had a semblance of competition. Things have come to a point where 28 members of parliament, elected under the ‘boat’ symbol, are now contesting against the ‘boat’ under symbols like the ‘eagle’ or the ‘truck’.

The member of parliament who would have lost his seat in parliament if he voted against a party resolution in parliament, is now seeking votes from the people against the party candidate and symbol. How can the commission permit such competition? There is no doubt that it would only be logical to cancel the candidature of someone contesting against the party candidate without even resigning from his party post. Had the election commission been a little strict, the ruling party would not have been able to manipulate the election as it pleases in this manner. Even if the matter went up to the court, the commission at least would have been able to absolve itself of being party to the alliance partners’ seat sharing exercise.

Our election commission legally has certain powers to control or supervise the political parties. The commission received these powers through the political parties registration act, by means of which it can give or cancel the registration of a party. The commission has been given the power to control matters such as the party  fund collecting, having or not having affiliated front organisations and so on. Under section 9 B of this act, a candidate nominated by a party is given the party symbol, and so there is scope for the commission also to take action in the case of party discipline. The commission is clearly avoiding that responsibility.

It has already been seen that the election commission is not interested in ensuring that the political parties follow the political party rules. While this law prohibits taking funds or gifts from foreigners, the election commission did not question any political party about their accepting medical goods as gifts from the Chinese government during the pandemic.

The much criticised former state minister for information Murad Hasan has been heard on a video recording declaring, “If you vote for the ‘boat’, it’s the ‘boat’. If you vote for the ‘eagle’, it’s the ‘boat’. If you vote for the ‘truck’, it’s the ‘boat’.”

Such a staged display is becoming totally meaningless, hence this hiked up last-minute flurry by the CEC and his commissioners to achieve credibility. Now when candidature is cancelled, cases are filed for violating the election code, or there are a couple of transfers in the police and administration for biased behavior, people see all this as eyewash.

These might increase up till the day of the election. The election commission has completed all arrangements for a certificate of free and fairness. A total of 80 specially invited observers from 11 countries, including China, Russia and India, are arriving. The ruling party and the administration have taken all measures to increase voter turnout by instilling fear and motivating.

With state benefits and allowances being used as a tools, it perhaps may not be too difficult to increase presence at the polling stations. However, as none of this will offer the voters the scope to select an alternative to the ruling party, there is no scope to make this credible. The commission, instead, can now think about how to admit to failure.

* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist