It would be very wrong to think that there is no one left who simply cannot accept that the deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina had to flee the country in the face of the student-people’s uprising and that the autocratic rule has come to end. There is already evidence in this regard. These are not only persons of the autocratic government or members of the party, but there are evidently some who are still seated in constitutional institutions too. We still recall the failed uprising of the judiciary, but that is not all. Or else the chief of the election commission, the institution that played a pivotal role in extending the autocratic rule, would not have suddenly raised the issue of the constitution being violated.
In an article published in Samakal on 24 August, the chief election commissioner Kazi Habibul Awal called for a partial or complete suspension of the constitution. Rather plaintively he said, “The election commission is in a constitutional crisis. There is no one with whom to hold discussions. That is why I find it prudent, as chief of the commission, to apprise the people by means of writing in the newspaper.” As to what he wants to discuss, as far as could be gathered from his writing, is that there is a “visible constitutional vacuum in this post-revolution period.”
This former law secretary, who also had served in the judiciary, justified a partial or full suspension of the constitution by saying that if there had been a military coup, then the constitution would have immediately been suspended by military order. Then the order would be given priority as the highest statute. That means, between the order and the suspension, the order is given priority if there is controversy over the constitution. That is how the continuity of the rule of law is maintained.
After that, Kazi Habibul Awal referred to the swearing in of the interim government, terming it the "revolutionary government". Perhaps he had forgotten that the chief advisor and the other advisors were sworn in under the constitution and so he wrote, "Validation was taken from the Supreme Court in advance. Then the Appellate Division itself was shown the door." He totally overlooked the fact that that the Appellate Division had to exit because of its controversial role in keeping the autocratic government in place and for the failed judicial coup against the new government.
While Kazi Habibul Awal did write, "Approval of the court is not required to render an uprising effective," he clearly disparaged the interim government when he wrote, "A mass uprising is a self-evident reality. It is above the law. However, during the post-revolution period an order above the law is certainly essential. Military bureaucrats are aware of this. Perhaps the civil bureaucrats are not." The readers will have no doubt about whom he is referring to as civil bureaucrats.
Other than what he wrote in Samakal, Habibul Awal's views are ever more pronounced in a report of bdnews24. This report contains certain statements which were not published in Samakal, but which are politically controversial ('CEC points to history of revolutions, wants order to suspend constitution, 25 August 2024). Drawing examples of revolutions and counter revolutions in various countries, he was perhaps hinting at the risks of counter revolutions. He wrote, "Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was killed in a military revolution on 15 August 1975. There was another military coup in November and soon after that, a successful counter revolution of the soldiers and the people."
The narrative of referring to the 3 November failed coup as a revolution and the 7 November change as a counter revolution is the source of a significant debate regarding Bangladesh political divide. While not delving into his predictable reply if questioned about the one-sided narrative, it is certainly necessary to question why he raised this issue. Referring to a possible "counter revolution" and also claiming that a constitutional vacuum prevails, is certainly not anything normal. When their own very recruitment was questionable and when the opposition parties and civil society had for long been demanding their resignation, it is only natural to question why they cling on to their posts even after the mass uprising.
It is because of their actions, particularly prolonging the term of the autocratic rule by means of a one-sided and uncontested election farce, that not a single election held under them was participated in by any party other than Awami League.
The chief election commission can write a column, that is his right. But by not accepting the reality of the people's movement and by not resigning in order to smooth the way ahead for change, his words have an underlying political tone. That tone also reflects a particular political bias
How can the chief election commissioner forget the statement he made on 13 February while speaking to journalists? He had said, "The election will not be defiled if the major political parties do not join. The election will not be illegal. But the universality of the election may be harmed, its credibility may be harmed and even its legitimacy may be hampered. But its legality will not be questioned. But the link between legality and legitimacy cannot be totally discarded." After admitting to the curbing of the election's legitimacy, it was his moral duty to resign along with the other commissioners. Had the 12th parliamentary election been credible, history would have been different.
Now Habibul Awal is writing, "The parliament has been dissolved in an unconstitutional manner." Referring to Article 123 (3)b of the constitution, he said that there were constitutional compulsions to hold elections within 90 days of the parliamentary seats falling vacant. He even said that there was risk of death sentence too if this was violated. Yet there was Article 118 (6) before them. According to that, he can "resign by writing under his hand addressed to the president" and he will not have to provide any reason either.
The chief election commission can write a column, that is his right. But by not accepting the reality of the people's movement and by not resigning in order to smooth the way ahead for change, his words have an underlying political tone. That tone also reflects a particular political bias. The manner in which he raised the question concerning the constitution, rather than discussing the matter with the president or the chief advisor, is very abnormal. We do not know, is his writing only his opinion or that of the entire commission?
We cannot forget that even after the government opened up everything again, the recent former chief justice quite abnormally suspended all functions of the court and called a full court meeting. The students protested that this was an attempt for judicial coup and they eventually had to exit. It was they who had created that unwarranted situation in court.
A repetition of any such circumstances in any institution is totally unwarranted.
* 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