A Seshan model feasible in Bangladesh?

Search for a change-maker was the theme of a column that appeared in Prothom Alo on 1 September. It was an informative, well-written piece by researcher on South Asian history, Altaf Parvez. It was a guideline of sorts.

The piece presented a brief life sketch of India’s chief election commissioner (1990-96) TN Seshan and the success of his relentless struggle to remedy the injustices in that country’s election politics.

Altaf Parvez wrote: “Many TN Seshans are needed to remove the heavy stone of repression from the society and politics of the South Asian society." He sees this as of particular importance to Bangladesh: “There are chief election commissions and election commissioners, but what the country needs is a change-maker.”

One cannot differ.

What were the circumstances in India for which TN Seshan could play this role? What were the key factors behind his success? It is also a matter of speculation as to whether such a Seshan would be successful here, in our present day context. If such an honest, determined and committed person was made chief election commissioner (CEC), would his work environment be conducive?

Both in India and Bangladesh, the constitution is the source of the election commission and the CEC’s power. And certain laws enacted from time to time serve to consolidate that power. According to experts, our CEC’s authority is no less than that of the CEC in India. In fact, it is stronger in several areas.

So if they can do it there, why can’t we do it here? Will just a Seshan-like CEC be enough to do the trick? Actually, there is much more than meets the eye.

The Indian election commission has a workforce of around 300, while ours exceeds 4,000. In fact, there are plans to expand this to 7,000. It is said that if the responsibility is given to the election officials, then there is less chance of government intervention. They are given responsibility from time to time, as in the recent city corporation elections. It was even said that elections could not be conducted by a politicised administration.

Since 1991, four elections were held under a caretaker government. Prior to that, the government’s politicised the administration. But without such political influence, the administration successfully conducted four national elections.

In the article under discussion it was written that the moment the election schedule was announced, Seshan would take control of the administration and the law and order forces. He sternly wielded his power in transferring or punishing them. Even the income tax department personnel were not spared. He would send them to monitor the expenditure of the election candidates.

And he had the court’s support. He suspended the election in Tamil Nadu when the law enforcement was not deployed there in accordance to his wishes. He did not bother about the constitutional obligations to hold the election within a certain period of time. The state government filed a case with the Supreme Court, but the verdict went in favour of Seshan. The court ruled that elections were a referendum for which proper procedures were required. This would not be possible with inadequate security measures. The court ruled in Seshan’s favour so it is only natural for him to succeed!

In our country, during the four-party alliance government, the election commission recommended army deployment in the parliamentary by-elections of the Tejgaon constituency. During the Maha Jote (grand alliance) government, the commission demanded deployment of the armed forces in the Narayanganj city corporation elections. Neither of the governments complied. This is a blatant violation of the constitution, but no one was held accountable.

We have both similarities and differences with India, in our system of governance. The biggest difference is that here our power is concentrated on one focal point. In India it is widely dispersed. There is corruption in politics there too. Seshan’s measures were not wholly sustainable. The parliamentary system was in effect since the very beginning in that country and the election process had never been disrupted.

There had been a lot of irregularities before Seshan. He brought those firmly under the law. He even conducted re-elections if he found allegations of irregularities to be justified. The court always backed him. He was a thorn in the flesh to corrupted politicians, but a hero to the people. He disqualified around 14,000 candidates from contesting the elections for three years. His term in office was described in the article as a series of battles. He forced the government to issued ID cards.

Seshan was an officer of the 1955 batch of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). He was made cabinet secretary in 1989. He remained firm and uncompromising throughout his career, loyal to the constitution, the law and the people. Would any political government make such an officer CEC in our country?

TN Seshan began his career in Tamil Nadu where the chief minister was Kamaraj, considered at one time as Congress’ kingmaker. In his book, The Degeneration of India, wrote about the local political pressure at the time, but also about Kamaraj’s commitment to the rule of law. Seshan now lives in an old age home in Tamil Nadu.

There is such a wide gap between Seshan’s work area and environment and that of ours. The fault is ours. In the 1954 election, conducted by the home ministry of the East Bengal government and without any election commissioner, the party in power faced massive defeat. But none of the elections under political governments even after the 1991 restoration of democracy, have been above question. That is when many people like Altaf Parvez feel that a CEC like TN Seshan could change the situation. He could be a change maker. But our circumstances are different.

The elections which have been successful in our country have all been under caretaker governments. The politicians in power must realise that the country’s image will steadily erode if participatory and credible elections are not held. The people have a role to play in influencing the government to create an environment for such fair elections. They have played such a role during times of crisis in the past. The constitution, the law, everything is for the people and by the people. Perhaps, in this context, a TN Seshan just might emerge.

* Ali Imam Majumder is a former cabinet secretary and can be contacted at majumderali1950@gmail.com. This piece has been rewritten in English by Ayesha Kabir