It suddenly seems that something new is going to happen in the country’s political situation. Chief adviser professor Muhammad Yunus has been saying for some time that the national parliamentary elections will be held by December. The chief adviser initially mentioned this outside the country. Since then, he has been consistently stating this. Almost everyone, including the country's political parties, believed this. Discussions about this had started in villages and even around tea tables. But suddenly, he said the election would be held between December and March.
At that time, environment, forest, and climate change adviser Rizwana Hasan first said that the election would take place between December and June. Shortly after, the new leader of the National Citizen Party (NCP), Nahid Islam, said that the election environment had not yet been created in the country. Describing the state of the administration and police, he mentioned that the police were not yet in a condition to hold elections.
During an interview with former US ambassador and president of the US-based human rights organisation Right to Freedom, William B Milam, and former American diplomat, John F Danilowicz, chief adviser professor Muhammad Yunus said that there would be discussions with political parties regarding the proposals made by six commissions about reforms.
After the dialogue, the political parties would sign the July Charter. The interim government would implement some of the recommendations from this charter, while the remaining parts would be implemented by the next political government.
Professor Yunus also said that if the political parties agree to fewer reforms before the election, the election could take place in December. Otherwise, the national election would be held by June of the following year.
Doesn't this sound a bit unclear? The July Charter and reforms are certainly not the same thing. But the way the chief adviser is speaking, it seems that if there is national consensus on the July Charter, then later there will be a consensus on reforms. This needs further discussion.
Readers must remember the July Charter or July Proclamation. At that time, it was referred to as a proclamation. The students were very serious about this issue. They were particularly upset that there was no proclamation about the July uprising. Because of this, they blamed the government. In response, the government had said that a proclamation could not be made alone and required consensus, and that it would start discussions with political parties to build that consensus.
The July Charter or Proclamation doesn't just refer to the July Uprising; it’s part of history. Therefore, it has a past, a present, and future directions. Those who were part of the movement say it represents continuity, and this continuity can be traced back from the 1952 language movement up to today. Many, even in the context of India's partition, find the direction for Bangladesh’s history in today's situation. To be more specific, the Proclamation is something that explains the period of turmoil and inspires hope for future building. It is an analysis that instills hope, not a framework for state reform.
At the end of December, student movement coordinators had pressured for a proclamation. They even prepared a draft charter and sent it to political parties and various stakeholders. Readers must recall that at that time, various stakeholders did not show much interest in the students' initiative. It wasn’t because they neglected the students; it was a matter of how they chose to engage with the issue. Since this is a major political question, it needed to be viewed in the broader context of overall politics. Some might agree with the proposed charter, some might agree partially, and others might not agree with the overall concept at all.
State reforms are not synonymous with the charter. Reforms, especially in today’s context, refer to qualitative changes in the constitution and election procedures. This is not the July Uprising’s charter in any sense. The government formed six commissions, which have submitted their reports. These six commissions have created six spreadsheets, where stakeholders can suggest yes/no responses or propose minor changes. There is a scope of ticking or making proposals. The process of these two is different.
Are these two seen as the same? There’s no chance of that. Moreover, if the parties agree to minor reforms, the election could be in December, but if not, it could be postponed until March or June. Doesn’t this statement create confusion about reforms? Is the issue about fewer or more reforms really like this?
Seven months later, the entire nation, based on real experience, now understands the necessary reforms for a good and acceptable election. For example, Nahid Islam, the newly formed political party’s leader, believes that the country’s police force is not at all prepared to conduct a good election. I agree with this. The question is, couldn’t the police have been brought up to that level in the past seven months? Isn’t it possible to do that within these seven months?
The same can be said about the public administration and the election commission. What does reform mean in these contexts? Reform certainly implies a complete overhaul. On the other hand, police could work in a somewhat proactive way, instead of being fully proactive. It seems that those in power right now are not able to think about getting the necessary work done in this manner. That’s why, even after a month of taking office as chief adviser, whatever reforms (?) have been made are being mentioned, but just the other day, he said that reforms hadn’t even started yet.
Has the country paused a bit due to the sudden talk of delaying the election? I think so. After the student-people's struggle against Sheikh Hasina’s heartless fascist rule, which led to victory, the people of this country, even political parties, have respect and sympathy for the students. People are observing the political party formed by the students with great attention, and that’s only normal.
Political parties, of course, will view this new political party as competition. They are carefully analysing the behaviour and statements of this newly formed party from the very beginning, and will continue to do so. It is no secret that chief adviser professor Muhammad Yunus has special feelings for this party and its organisers. They believe that the chief adviser listens especially to them, and they also think the government might provide them with political advantages.
For example, they might need more time to form their party, which could be a reason for the government to delay the election agenda. This might explain why the election has shifted from December to June. If necessary, it could be delayed even further.
The politics of the coming days, therefore, demand deeper observation.
* Mahmudur Rahman Manna is the president of Nagorik Oikya
** This column appeared in the print edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Rabiul Islam