Rallies of the two major political parties are to be held on 28 October in Dhaka. Many fear clashes between the two sides. Many have quite justifiably expressed such apprehensions in the media about this. Then again, there are many who see this simply as sabre-rattling by the two sides. They say that the people are on no side, the common people have no stakes in this contest between the two sides. But that is not wholly true.
The present political crisis in Bangladesh is basically centered on voting rights. So the people are a party too, their interests are involved. The people want to vote, they want to give their verdict, they want the government to be formed on their basis of their verdict. They are the majority. This majority was unable to cast their votes in the past two elections. If they fail to cast their votes in 2024 too, that means they will be deprived of voting for over a dozen years. No people of any country can want this. And is particularly pertinent to this country where the people took up a struggle of independence because the verdict of their votes was refuted.
There is no reason for us to think that people have lost interest in their voting rights or that they will not surge to the polling centres again if their voting rights are restored
So the present crisis is not just a contest between two parties, but between two sides. One side wants to ensure the voting rights of the people, the other side does not. In the past, Ershad or the 1996 BNP had been on the side against free voting rights. For one and a half decades, the same allegation remains against the present government. The previous governments, at a certain point of time, acquiesced to the pressure of public opinion and resigned in the interests of free elections. The present government has held two contrived elections and still remains in power. They have sometimes used state power to suppress people's pressure, sometimes snatched away the scope for public opinion to be organised. The people have not got back their right to vote.
This does not mean that the people have moved away from their aspirations to vote. It was these people who, till 2013, spontaneously took part in the elections. Then again, when they saw that there was no scope to exert their voting rights, over the past few years they stopped coming to the polling centres. So there is no reason for us to think that people have lost interest in their voting rights or that they will not surge to the polling centres again if their voting rights are restored. So the people are certainly one side in the struggle to establish or restore voting rights. Just as this is a struggle between two parties to ascend to power, it is also a process for the people to establish their rights.
2.
The people want fair elections because their interests are involved in this. Some of us do not try to understand that. We say, every time there is an election, one party comes to power, and the people lose time and again. We also say, elections mean going from the frying pan into the fire, the people do not benefit in any way. But is that actually so?
From past experience we have seen, even when a fair election is held, many of the people's aspirations are not fulfilled. Power changes hands, but the two parties are criticised, in varying degrees, for shortfalls in establishing good governance. That why it is ruefully said, it is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. But if there are fair elections and every five years a side is defeated and a different side comes to power, it takes time for the fire and the frying pan to heat up again. But when there is no election, then the flames become hellfire. We are well aware of the situation that emerged after the 2014 and 2018 elections. We have even seen instances in some of our neighbouring countries how people's rights are crushed if there are no fair elections.
There is no point in making comparisons with the past. The comparison must be drawn between elected and unelected (in the sense of rigged elections) governments. We must dispassionately analyse in which circumstances the people benefit. Then we will be able to understand why Bangladesh's people must also be considered as a party in the question of fair elections.
3.
We all know that if there is a fair election, the candidates have to go to the people, answer at least to some extent for their past actions, and made some commitments. In staged election, there is no need to go to the people, only the administration and the various forces have to be kept happy and the criminal cadres of the party have to be used. When emerging victorious in such an election, there is no obligation to do anything for the people. Rather, the administration and the various forces must be given benefits unstintingly and the party cadres must be given impunity for the boundless looting. Any discontent that they may have can be addressed by imposing all sorts of taxes and expenditure on the people and also a strong coterie of loyalists can be built up by freely stealing public money from banks, the share market and the reserves. These experiences are nothing new to us.
There are more benefits to a fair election. If an election is fair, there is a fear of losing power. If power is lost, there is fear of being exposed in the media, of facing cases and harassment. Then the party is power is a bit restrained in resorting to unscrupulous action. If a staged election can be ensured, then there are no such fears. Then uncontrolled suppression and repression can be unleashed not just against the opposition parties, but against any justified demands and non-political movements too. All of us have seen this in the instance of the quota reforms movement, even in the movement of children for safe roads.
Bangladesh's history indicates power changes hands in fair elections. As a result, biased appointments can't be made to top positions in state organisations, rendering these into completely partisan establishments. When a new government comes to power, persons who were discriminated against under the previous regime, are rewarded. This process, to an extent, keeps some form of balance in state organisations. But staged elections eliminate the possibility of government change and so this balance does not exist. The establishments lose accountability. It is not just the opposition, but the common people who face endless sufferings.
In the case of fair elections, there is a balanced distribution of state benefits, leading to less economic disparity and inequity. If there is a strong opposition in parliament and on the streets, a relatively free media and a certain degree of people's participation in the decision-making process, there is a relatively higher degree of accountability and transparency in government. It becomes difficult to spin narratives of imaginary development.
4.
That is why the people benefit if there is a free election. Whoever comes to power in a free election, the people are relatively less apprehensive of being harmed. So if there is a fair election every five years, the people do not lose. The people lose when there is a contrived election every five years and when this continues.
Those of us who enjoy perks and benefits in society, do not understand this truth, or do not want to understand it. All we see even after two engineered elections is Awami League and BNP in the prevailing political crisis. We ourselves become inspirations for such staged elections.
If we have minimum confidence in people's rights, we must admit the link between fair elections and public interests. The people are the most important stakeholders. From the political and election history of this country we must search in all honesty how a fair election can be held. This is not a very difficult task.
* Asif Nazrul is professor of the law department law at Dhaka University.
* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir