Hassling the president and the EC law

There seems to be no end to the political drama and debate over the process of constituting an election commission. The cabinet secretary had said that it wouldn’t take long for the relevant law to be drawn up and his words proved to be true. He said this when asked by journalists, after the draft law regarding the formation of the election commission was given approval on 17 January at the cabinet meeting, if the coming parliamentary election would be held under this law. The draft law was tabled in parliament on 23 January and it was then sent to the parliamentary standing committee on the law ministry to be scrunitised within two weeks.

The extremely hardworking committee just took 24 hours to assess the pros and cons of the draft, dispensing its duty with just a couple of recommendations for minor changes in the draft. They could have consulted election experts or members of the civil society if they wanted, but they did not feel the need to do so. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that this will be soon passed as a law. The process of drawing up this law and getting it approved has been extremely hurried, to say the least. There can be no justification for such a hurry unless there is a specific motive behind this.

Amidst all this drama of drawing up the election commission law, we are forgetting the unnecessary hassle the president had to undergo regarding the formation of the election commission. Hasn’t this been a bit of injustice towards the highest office of the state?

From the third week of December, the president for nearly three consecutive weeks held meetings with politicians, though most of the participating parties were allies of the ruling party or of its camp. Awami League’s main rival BNP and most of the left leaning parties did not join the president’s dialogue.

Those who did not join in the dialogue justified this decision by saying that they had joined in such dialogue with the president earlier, regarding the formation of the election commission, but none of their demands or recommendations were taken into cognizance. Many prominent members of the civil society expressed their doubts about this initiative. Former caretaker government advisor Akbar Ali Khan said, “The president’s dialogue about forming a new election commission will not be of much use.”

Law minister Anisul Huq responded, “You can understand whether the dialogue has been a success or a failure only after observing what steps the president takes once the dialogue is over.” We are yet again seeing unfortunate evidence of the president’s dialogue and its outcome being dependent on the decision of the government, that is, the prime minister. If the president had exchanged views with all the parties on overarching political issues, the results could have been different. Then no party could justifiably boycott the dialogue and the president would not have had to face such a disconcerting exposure of powerlessness.

The law that has been proposed includes a clause that may pitch the president’s post into embarrassment again. This clause states that the past search committees and their actions as well as the appointment of the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners based on their recommendations will be considered legitimate and no questions about this can be raised in court. Is this not a request for indemnity for the president? After all, it is the president who appoints them all, from the search committee to the election commission. Article 51 (1) of the constitution specifically has provision to indemnify the president, so why this fresh indemnity proposal in the new law?

In the meantime, various political parties and the civil society have given their reactions and detailed analysis in the media about the draft law that has been placed in parliament. These deliberations clearly indicate that no one other than the ruling party is in favour of this draft. They state that this draft is nothing but legal garb for the failed method used to appoint the Rakib commission and the Nurul Huda commission. Unless major changes are made in this law, it will prove that the assurance made on 2 January by the law minister about a ‘universal law’, is nothing but rhetoric. He had said. “This law must be acceptable to all. It will not be a universal law unless it is acceptable by all parties.”

The question is, is it possible to have a universal law by means of this parliament? After all, other than 9 members (7 of BNP and 2 of Gono Forum) of the parliament, all the other members are of the ruling Awami League and its allies. Surely there is no need to be reminded that the ‘opposition’ in parliament participated in the elections on seat-sharing understanding with Awami League and were obliged to form the opposition despite wanting to be part of the government. Outside of the parliament, the major opposition is still BNP. So a political understanding needs to be reached with BNP in order to come up with a ‘universal law’. There are no signs whatsoever that the ruling party is interested in anything of the sort.

After facing flak at home and abroad for the one-sided election of 2014, the government’s aim was for the 2018 election to be an inclusive one. That is why before the election the prime minister held dialogue with BNP and its allies. So even though the people hardly got a chance to cast their votes, Awami League could claim this to be an inclusive election because BNP and its allies participated in it.

However, there has been no difference in the pitiful predicament of democracy. So the demand for free and credible elections to revive democracy has been gaining momentum. Even the parties who have been partners in power over the past 13 years and never felt the need for an election commission law, are now suddenly vocal in their demand for such a law.

People are questioning the motive of the government. Their misgivings are not unfounded. An election commission law is not a panacea for fair elections unless there is some form of political understanding. Had the president so wanted, he could have widened the scope of the dialogue and undertaken initiative for genuine discussions and understanding on the issues, including the framework of an election-time government. And at the end of the second term in this highest office of the state, this would hardly be much of a risk. But history does not give us hope.

* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist.

* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir