It seems that some of us are quite intrigued by the results of the Union Parishad (UP) elections that show official nominees of the ruling party, Awami League, having lost in a big way. According to Prothom Alo, AL nominees’ percentage of losing the electoral battle gradually went up from 24 per cent in the first phase to 49 per cent in the fourth phase. Many critics of the government see it as a sign of serious erosion of popular support to the ruling party.
The fact, however, remains that most of the winners are so-called rebels of the AL and these elections were not a direct contest with AL’s main rival, the Bangladesh nationalist party (BNP), as the latter boycotted these elections. The Information Minister, Hasan Mahmud is right to point out the rebels' win is also AL’s win. However, his assertion that the Awami League is the only alternative to the Awami League is quite a different and much more serious issue. It raises a whole range of critical questions, including whether it reflects any intention of making the country a single-party state. And, the scale of rebellion within the party exposes how vicious and deadly the intra-party power struggle has been. The 70 or more death toll of the UP elections that essentially became a factional contest also shows the inability of the party’s leadership to resolve internal conflict and build a disciplined party.
These bloodstained UP elections, undoubtedly, have caused enormous pain to those families who have lost their near and dear ones and left hundreds others with life-changing injuries. But, it has also exposed the worst weaknesses of the ruling party, the internecine rivalries between several factions. Factions led by MPs were competing against groups led by Upazilla Chairpersons or party functionaries. It, however, does not mean an automatic opportunity for the opposition parties to exploit the ruling party’s weakness as those power-hungry local government representatives are unlikely to remain rebellious for too long and they are likely to be welcomed back soon to the ruling party.
Press reports suggest voters’ participation in these elections had indeed improved in the fourth phase. The proportion of uncontested winners has also declined in this phase. But, despite these little improvements in the latest phase of these staggered elections, the performance of the EC remained woeful. These bloodstained UP elections are the latest addition to a very long list of the current EC’s miserable failures in fulfilling their constitutional duties and obligations.
It is true that some degree of violence in most electoral contests in Bangladesh is not unexpected. But, the spread and gravity due to the failure of the current EC to stand up to the hegemonic pressure from the party in power have hit a new record. In the past, electoral violence was largely meant to stifle political competition, but under the current EC, it also disenfranchised the electorate.
As the President has initiated a process of consultation on the formation of the next EC, we need to remind ourselves of these facts, as restoring trust in the electoral mechanism and the institution in charge has now become too daunting a task. Questions have already been raised about the prospect of the President’s dialogue as the opposition BNP and few other remaining parties have already declined the invitation. There’s some confusion too about the purpose of the presidential initiative as leaders of NAP, one of the parties who had met the President, told the media afterwards that there had been no discussion on the so-called search committee, though we were told earlier by ministers that it was the precise objective.
Leaders of a few other parties, allied with the ruling Awami League, have called for legislation to form the commission. It is quite interesting to note that none of these parties, despite having been partners of the ruling coalition for over a decade, have thought of and spoken about such legislation before. Had they felt the necessity of such legislation as they do today, they could have attempted to introduce a private member’s bill in this regard long ago. Perhaps, this is an opportunistic position to align themselves with some citizens’ groups who have been demanding enactment of a law codifying required qualifications and criterion for the appointment of election commissioners.
There's no doubt that a law can bring an end to the uncertainties and political wranglings every five years. But the most crucial question is: What is the incentive for the ruling party in agreeing to cede the power of influence over such a crucial constitutional body? On the contrary, if the ruling party codifies such a mechanism which gives an in-built advantage to the party in power, then what would be the remedy? No wonder, the current CEC, KM Nurul Huda and his apparent in-house critic, commissioner Mahbub Talukder, have both called for a political consensus on formation of the future EC. On September 22, Mahbub Talukder told the media that it was not possible to change the current state of elections without a political compromise. He said multi-party participation in elections was essential for multi-party democracy and uncontested elections have resulted in voters' aversion to elections which, according to him, was a bad omen for democracy. A week later, on September 29, CEC Nurul Huda echoed similar views when he said the commission should be based on the consensus of all parties.
It is, therefore, high time to push for a broader political dialogue and compromise on how to conduct the next election in an acceptable manner. Otherwise, the new commission would not be any better than the preceding two commissions.
মন্তব্যসমূহ
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন