Why the road to the election is in disarray
There are constitutional obligations of holding the 2024 Election by January. The election commission is also preparing for that. But that preparation is organisational and administrative.
But the main opposition parties in the field- BNP- and its like minded parties have announced not to take part in the election with the incumbent in power. A neutral caretaker government has to be formed after the current regime resigns. They also have a demand for changes within the election commission. Their position is rigid.
On the other hand, the party in power and their allies are saying that the election will be held under the constitution. It does not agree to the resignation of the government, the formation of a caretaker government or the dissolution of parliament.
There is no visible indication that the government will also change its stance. There appears to be no interest in reaching a consensus by bridging the gap between parties in apparently opposing positions. Direct communication has almost stopped. No third party seems to be willing to do anything.
The country's civil society has also weakened. The pressure of partisanship has also weakened it. Their presence is limited to roundtables, seminars etc. The foreign diplomats have been trying to do something but so far there is no positive development in that regard either.
If they want, they may remove the obstacles that have come before the elections to be held in 2024. But both parties have to be willing to do so. This is what the people of this country want.
So, it has to be assumed that BNP and its like-minded parties are not going to take part in the next parliamentary elections. In the context of inclusive elections, the ruling party is saying that the ongoing democratic process cannot stop the participation or exclusion of any party. They think that it can be called an inclusive election only if the people participate widely.
It is seen that the vote cast for Awami League and BNP is almost equal in the recent elections where every party took part. They fetched one-third of the votes each. The remainder one-third remains neutral. During the vote they tilt to a party or alliance and basically their support is the main decider of the result of the election.
If BNP and its like-minded parties do not take part in the election their supporters are not supposed to vote. As spectators lose interest about a game that does not have intense competition likewise the neutral voters are less likely to be present in the voting centres. Even the supporters of the ruling party are not that keen to go to the centres.
This was seen recently in a parliamentary by-election in Gulshan. The voter turnout rate there was below 10 per cent. In this case, the election can be one-sided. Irrespective of the attendance rate, those who run the election will determine the votes cast and the results on a consistent basis.
As seen in the 1979 and 1985 referendums and the 1988 parliamentary elections, a negligible number of voters went to the centre. But the 'votes cast' were shown in millions. However, the Constitution and the People's Representation Order have not drawn any minimum limit on how many voters should go to the vote centres.
So, where are we heading? The current government may stay in power by getting the mandate from the people through a visibly fair election. No one argues about that.
In such a situation, in the 2014 election which the BNP and its like-minded parties boycotted, the candidates of the government party and alliance became parliamentarians unopposed in 153 seats.
The opposition parties took part in the 2018 election but they could not campaign properly during the election day or the prior days. Even they did not have agents in many voting centres. Their supporters were imprisoned or exiled. On the other hand, inertia had been observed with regard to electoral participation among opposition parties.
Some of them did not field candidates in the elections. However, the opposition party had gotten around ten seats anyway. Everything else went the the government parties and coalitions. How genuine that was, only the people in the legal arena can say. But elections held in absentia of people are not politically acceptable.
There are strong allegations of sealing the ballots on behalf of the ruling party by occupying the polling stations on the eve of the election day in 2018. This has definitely weakened democracy. So, it can be said that the people of this country have not seen a credible and inclusive election after 2008.
The people, for obvious reasons, hope that the elections to be held in early 2024 will at least not be like the previous two. There will be an opportunity for voters to participate. However, due to the rigid position of the political parties, such signs are not visible.
After winning the 2008 election, which took place under the caretaker government, Awami League abolished the caretaker government system within a few days in power. Then the provision of keeping on the parliament was also added. A divided ruling of the Supreme Court helped them in this regard.
The caretaker government system was enacted in February 1996 by the parliament that was formed through a controversial election. Awami League took a strong stance in favour of that back then. It can’t be said that the system was without any fault. But there was provision of amendments.
The erstwhile president was forced to resign by the mass uprising of 1990. Even though there was no such provision in the constitution, according to the outline of the three alliances, the Chief Justice of the country had to take the responsibility of the president. He successfully held the national election and fulfilled other responsibilities.
Later, the newly elected parliament passed amendments to the constitution validating his ascension to power and tenure. So, we see, despite the absence of a constitutional system, a caretaker government system was successfully introduced in this country in December 1990. Now the whole matter seems to be a bygone thing.
It has been noticed that in the elections under the partisan government, due to the boycott of the opposition parties or for similar reasons, the turnout of the voters become negligible. It must be said that the role of the government and the election commission also contribute to this. This should not have happened had they been sincere.
This time also there seems to be no strong effort by the BNP to participate or the government keen to bring them in the elections. The issue is political. So, the commission is remaining silent. It is only natural that we are disheartened.
Where are we heading? The current government may stay in power by getting the mandates from the people through a visibly fair election. No one argues about it. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru was in power for almost 17 years till death. In that country the Left Front ruled the state of West Bengal for 34 years.
The composers of our constitution also focused on the rights of voters. According to the provisions of the constitution, the republic is owned by its people. And in the declaration of independence of this country, it is mentioned several times that after winning the elections held in 1970, the ruling clique has imposed a treacherous war without handing over power to the centre and the provinces.
The liberation war was fought with that spirit in mind. But today, during the various governments, democracy is facing repeated setbacks. This is still happening. Politicians are people of this country. They are leaders of the people. They also love the country.
If they want, they may remove the obstacles that have come before the elections to be held in 2024. But both parties have to be interested in it. This is what the people of this country want.
The election commission must establish full control over the election-related provisions of the country's governance system. But no strong indication of such happening is noticeable. If not, the election will remain in question. Our destination will remain uncertain.
*Ali Imam Majumder is a former cabinet secretary