The Chief Election Commissioner has invoked the doctrine of necessity as his justification for inviting Mannan/Saifur led BNP faction to pre-election discussions. See http://www.newagebd.com/2007/nov/07/index.html. This move has
1) Deepened the carefully orchestrated schism in BNP into something uglier and potentially irreparable.
2) Brought his allegiance to democratic norms into question.
3) Sullied the neutral image of the Election Commission.
1)It can be easily argued the CEC’s decision has played a key role in the scuffle between Hannan-Mannan factions at Zia’s mazar on the 7th. Although splits and divisions within political parties can be considered a natural part of the growth process, a split which seems to be carefully encouraged and engineered in part by party outsiders only serves to bring the fledgling democratic process into question.
2)The doctrine of necessity is basically a lazy name for naked power grab. I am not sure whether the CEC is aware of its notorious history. If he has knowingly cited this doctrine, then his commitment to democratic norms becomes immediately suspect. In the post independence South Asian context, as far as I know, this reprehensible doctrine was first cited in 1954 after the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was dissolved by General Ghulam Muhammad. The president of the Assembly Moulvi Tamizuddin challenged this seizure of power as unconstitutional in the Sindh High Court and won. However, Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned the Sindh High Court’s decision on the basis of, you guessed it, doctrine of necessity, opening the way for other such future power grabs…waves upon waves of them…watched the BBC lately?
Here’s the link I used: http://www.rghr.net/mainfile.php/0825/1130/
The “doctrine of necessity” justification (for state preservation) is a not too distant cousin of the national security justification that is flung around at will by certain administrations to subvert due process and rule of law both at home and abroad.
3) Our CEC should have known better than to become a party to the internal politics of BNP. Instead of favoring one side over the other why couldn’t he invite both for the time being? Surely this was within his discretion? It is understandable that the election clock is ticking and a decision had to be made. However, the bottom line is that the BNP constitution cannot justify the invitation of the Mannan faction as the true BNP. I think the New Age editorial from Nov. 7th is right in this regard.
The CEC has to actively stay above controversy. Hard as it may be, it is part of his job. His failure to do so (and justifying it by a heinous doctrine) has only worsened the intra BNP rift, brought his very allegiance to the democratic process into serious doubt, and sullied the public image of the Election Commission. “CEC,” after all, does not stand for “Chief Election Czar.”
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 14, 2007 at 7:11 am
taimul huq
You choose to ignore the simple fact that most of the BNP leaders and even some who have been locked up (Babar for example) have been working with Mannan Bhuiyah as the reformist faction.
The issue that brought about 1/11 was Khaleda/Tarique wishing to use their unprecendented dictotorial power to strearoll the democratic process by holding a biased one party election with a faulty voter list.
When Khaleda was arrested she appointed Hannah Shah as the acting secretary general despite Mr. Shah having any significant role within the BNP for a long time. Mr. Shah or Delwar have not produced a single influential leader who has backed them.
While on the other hand the reformists have the support of most well known BNP leaders, including Sadeq hossain Khoka whose wealth statement has been summoned by the ACC.
You may argue all you want and cite the BNP constitution (which may be regarded as a dictatorial manifesto) to argue againts the legitimacy of the EC decision but any unbiased person will applaud the EC for making the right choice.
November 19, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Leela
It is not the EC’s job to decide which faction of BNP has “better” leaders. Remember that the Hannan faction has…drumrolls…Khaleda Zia herself at the helm. If we’re talking about popular, it’s impossible to top her in Bangladeshi politics. Seat for seat she is more popular than any other contender in the last 15 years. This does not mean I support BNP’s massive corruption, killing for political gain etc. That is clearly not at issue here.
The BNP constitution may well be dictatorial but the EC has no right to disregard it at will. After all, where did the EC get the right to play dictator over party constitutions? Today the High Court has correctly ruled to place a stay order on the EC’s invitation and asked the EC to show cause. I fully agree with that decision.
1/11, BNP corruption etc. are not relevant to the point I was making. I certainly want political parties to have internal democracy. The EC can bring this about only after consultation with all political parties. But it cannot declare it by fiat and play favorites in such a blatant way. The High Court seems to be agreeing with that point of view.
November 27, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Nizamuddin Mahmood Selim
Touche, Leela! Pristine analysis, pure and simple. Partisan biases cloud the issue of the CEC’s jurisdiction and roles and functions, and, albeit, judgement on the prejudicial and purposive fiat handed down carte blanche for dispensation of favours to the ‘faithfuls’ of the ruling clique.
CEC did not act and behave ‘without fear or favour’,- that is the issue here. CEC is supposed to go by the book- the Party Constitution as it exists at the time of its examination and scrutiny. CEC is not supposed to bankroll the propaganda-propped or media-created populist players and actors. Pre-Election ‘popularity polls’ are in no way a matter of concern for either the CEC or the Election Commission in determining what Party functionaries legitimately merit and warrant invitation/invitation letter from the Election Commission for dialogue, discusiions and parleys. For that matter, jazzed-up ‘Jarvis’ (a-la P.G. Wodehouse) is a poor substitute for a straight-jacket Party spokesman selected by its Chairperson.
Note, please, the pregnant utterance from Election Commissioner Suhul Hussain : “We shall consider wo are in charge of BNP after 5th November”!!! And, please, please, do recall the “Midnight Coup” prior to 5th November 2007 that disturbed the BNP’s apple cart. Stage-managed? Orchestrated? How come the Office of the Election Commission became a party to this foregone and fait accompli conclusion of the pre-5th November apotheosis? Why did the Election Commission have to wait for the pre-5th November metamorphosis?
If BNP’s Constitution is ‘dictatorial’, so is AL’s. That is how these two see-saw political Parties under their “Netris” have been functioning for ages now. If one is undone for this character, even-handed justice warrants that both these Parties per se face similar fate. If Sheikh Hasina-selected Zillur Rahman can lead AL, so can Khaleda Zia-selected Khondaker Delwar Hossain. Jaundice-eyed CEC dictat has revealed the preference of the AL over BNP, thereby arguably raising seminal questions about the neutrality and impartiality of the entire Election Commission, CEC and the Election Commissioners. “Doctrine of Necessity” proclaimed by the CEC is as good as the vodoo economics of “Corruption-free” Bangladesh propagated by the CTG. Bangladesh is now bending backwards with the weight and burden of the Anti-Corruption hungama. If it had been a ‘derailed train’ prior to 1/11, Bangladesh is now a wreckage of a train devastated by the juggernaut of “Doctrine of Necessity”. Three cheers for ………?
November 28, 2007 at 7:15 am
Leela
Thanks Selim Bhai. I recently read in the Ittefaq Op-Ed that the CEC went gaga over AL’s greatness during its meeting with the AL in a very unseemly way. No doubt about AL’s contributions for our independence but CEC’s heavy handed treatment towards BNP is inexcusable. Remember how a venerated justice was prevented from becoming CEC last year because he once laid a wreath a Zia’s tomb? Those “happy” days seem so far away!
BTW, I’m a delirious fan of P.G. Wodehouse! Aaah Bertie, in the flesh you do resemble a fish. Comically enough, the male race of a certain class and upbringing has not progressed much since those coddled and clueless days, British, Bengali, whatever. Well, to be fair, Wodehouse doesn’t spare the females from his delightful wit lashing either. Wodehouse simply has a soft spot for all of us lost souls bungling through life. Haven’t had the pleasure of seeing/hearing Martin Jarvis in action, I don’t think, although I’ve seen a hilarious set of BBC/PBS adaptations. Thanks for bringing up Wodehouse.
November 30, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Nizamuddin Mahmood Selim
Dear Leela, - an inadvetent error, and not a cardinal sin I hope, - should have read Jeeves, and not ‘Jarvis’. My abject apologies.
The political cataclysm set afoot by the meritocracy dominated in the CTG - “Servants of the State” - reminds me of the usurpation of power by the “SLAVE DYNASTY” in an interregnum in Indian history. When servants, or slaves, become masters, more often than not they tend to make a mess of governance. Muhammad bin Tughlaq of the ‘Slave Dynasty’ was castigated by historians as a “monument of misdirected energy”.
Governance by the CTG is in a complete disarray: the Chief Advisor serves verbiose sermons all full of words of piety from his pulpit, the CAS goes on serving intermittent salvos on the “Do’s” and “Dont’s” of politics. politicking and business and economy, the Chief of the ACC goes public on his hell-bent witch hunt for uprooting corruption, the Law Adviser is ever so glib-talking on how to bring to even keel the “derailed train” of Democracy, the CEC continually declares his own plans and intentions about what he wants to see materialize in politics, the Political Parties and the Elections, and, finally, Sheikh Hasina’s “Yesuddin”, meaning the President, acts like a lame duck (though it is legally his Emergency declaration and his CTG) and delivers mumbo-jumbo and banal banterings in unctuous urbanity in the metropolis’s well-intentioned, but practically useless, fetes and frivlous “Conferences”. Who, after all, is in charge of the Government God alone knows. I recall having written somewhere in the blogsphere sometime back that it is a Government with “All Chiefs, and no Indians”. That is practically Bangladesh today with the blundering CTG.
Indeed, cyclone SIDR and its aftermath have bared naked the naivete of a bunch of “Servants”, or slaves, who have no inkling about what governance is all about, what running the machinery of the State means, and who, therefore, are driving Bangladesh to the precipice, either by omission or by commission. CEC, like the rest of his counterparts, are adding fuel to the fire.