M. Serajul Islam :
The January 5th elections for the 10th parliamentary election have placed Bangladesh at a cross-road by becoming controversial on a number of major issues. The paper examines these reasons. The examination of these reasons leads to the conclusion that although the elections were held according to the Constitution and therefore could be interpreted as being both legal and constitutional (that has given the parliament and the government legality) but because of the way the elections were held and a number of other related factors, these elections have palpably failed to give to both the extremely important element of legitimacy. There is therefore an urgent need for all the stakeholders led by the government to restore legitimacy to the parliament and the government for the sake of the country and its people.
January 5 elections, fourth held without participation of Opposition : Other three did not last on issue of legitimacy : The AL led government was left with no alternative but to hold the elections to avoid a constitutional black hole when the BNP refused to participate. There was also precedence in what the Awami League did. In 1986, the BNP did not participate in the national elections under the military dictatorship of HM Ershad ; in 1988 both the BNP and the AL did not take part in the national elections and in 1996, the AL/Jamaat and the JP stayed way from the parliamentary elections. Yet these elections were held legally. But none of the governments formed out of these elections lasted on the issue of legitimacy and in case of the 1996 elections, the government last merely 17 days.
January 5th elections qualitatively different from 1986/88/96 elections: The January 5th elections failed on the issue of legitimacy in a manner much worse than the 3 elections named. The 1996 elections was the worst example of an election devoid of any element of legitimacy because, part from opposition boycott, only 26% people voted and of the 300 seats, 47 seats had winners without contest. In the January 5th elections, there was no need for election in 153 seats that ensured that a government could be formed without a vote being cast that in fact was a death warrant on the democratic process of electing a government. In fact, when the number of uncontested winners crossed 150, the elections came into direct conflict with the Constitution that requires the parliament “to be elected in accordance with law from single territorial constituencies by direct election”. The EC should have called for fresh elections as a consequence of the 153 seats going uncontested based on the dictates of the Constitution. Instead it violated the Constitution and went ahead with elections for the remaining 147 seats where voter turn out was less than 10%. Thus overall the government formed out of the elections for the 10th parliament is one where 5% of the people have voted ; where over 50% of the people were disenfranchised and where the Constitution has been violated.
Facts of January 5 elections reveal the weakness of the legal/constitutional argument: These facts and figures make the arguments forwarded by the AL led government that the elections were a constitutional necessity and that a government formed out of such were less than 5% people voted it legal, a very weak one. The January 5th elections have also demolished another major AL argument that stated the controversy over which the BNP remained out of the elections; that only elected people could elect democratic governments. The 10th parliament has now gone into the history books as a parliament where the majority of its members have not even a single vote to show for becoming members of the sovereign parliament of the country! These members will now join the 147 others who have been sent to the parliament by less than 10% of the people and elect 50 women members, which will make the parliament a body of 350 members who can claim anything they would like except that they represent the people of Bangladesh. With this being the nature of the 10th parliament, the argument that it can stay for 5 years because the voters have given it a “mandate” can only be made by using legality over legitimacy and trying to establish the right to govern by force of state power.
EC has failed in its constitutional duty with January 5th elections : Arrest of BNP leaders, closure of its officers and the JP Drama: Therefore, when political equations change in the future, the EC will have to answer for violation of the constitution for not calling for fresh elections after the majority of the members of the parliament were declared elected without the vote of the people. This was just one of the many unacceptable actions of the EC that have brought Bangladesh to a political crisis where for the first time in its history, it has a government that lacks legitimacy to the extent that it can continue on the palpably weak thread of (disputed) legality. Two examples would be particularly relevant here to show how the EC has failed the nation by its overtly pro-AL stance. First, was its silence over the drama regarding how the Jatiya Party was forced to participate in the elections. Second, was the government’s treatment of the BNP, the main opposition. Its leader Begum Khaleda Zia was kept interned forcibly; main opposition leaders jailed on cases politically motivated. Finally, the main office of the BNP was locked and not cases politically motivated. Finally, the main office of the BNP was locked and not even a fly was allowed to enter that office.
EC weakened the government’s case that it could hold free, fair and transparent elections: In fact, these actions of an EC that failed to show neutrality and overtly favoured the interests of the Awami League, in many cases as if they represented it, have weakened the ruling party’s contention of legality of the January 5th elections. In fact, the way the January 5th elections have turned out fulfilled two of the major contentions of the BNP and the 33 of the 44 registered parties of the country that boycotted the elections. First, that the voters would reject the ruling party’s attempt to hold elections with just itself and its allies. Second, the EC would be partial towards the ruling party to be incapable to hold elections with a level playing ground.
January 5th elections compromised the spirit of 1971: These problems that have emerged out of the January 5th elections are extremely serious as it destroys two fundamental elements in any democratic election, namely credibility and legitimacy. Unfortunately, the January 5th elections have created even more fundamental problems for the ruling party and the nation arising from the fact that over half the nation were disenfranchised by the process. In 1971, the main issue that led the 75 million people to answer to the clarion call of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to fight for independence was the decision of the Pakistan’s military government to disregard the right that the people of Bangladesh had expressed through the elections of December 1970 to send the AL to form the Government of Pakistan and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to become the Prime Minister so that their political/economic rights that had been usurped by the government of Pakistan would be returned. In fact, the most fundamental element of Muktijuddher Chetona was the right of the people of Bangladesh to vote to power the party they want to form the government without fear or favour. The January 5th elections have thus denied the most fundamental element in Muktijuddher Chetona, namely the right of the people to vote and choose their representatives.
National media reaction to January 5th elections : From the media perspective, the January 5th elections were unlike any other held previously in the country. In particular, the very large number of private TV channels made a qualitative impact upon the coverage of the elections. This time, people did not have to wait for newspapers to know what was happening; the private TV channels gave them instant access to all the events surrounding the January 5th elections. They were shown all the violence that the opposition indulged in and drew their own conclusions. They also saw a voters’ apathy marked by the absence of any lines in the overwhelming majority of the voting booths. They also saw how the ruling party and its law enforcing agencies dealt with the opposition; how Khaleda Zia was incarcerated without legal order and how almost all the top brass of the BNP taken to jail or made to run for fear of being incarcerated.
It was the largest circulation Bengali newspaper of the country “Prothom Alo” that hit the nail in the coffin about the nature of the January 5th elections with the head line “Jaal Vote : Kalankita Nirbachan” that translated into English would read “Fake votes; Tarnished elections”. A media that is largely pro-AL failed to find the right excuses to say anything good about the elections. The theme that came out of these reports was that the government merely carried out a legal/constitutional obligation but failed to convince anyone that it would give the elections and the government formed out of it, either legitimacy or credibility.
Foreign media reaction to the elections: Foreign media also followed the same trend as in the local newspapers; reporting upon the 153 being “elected” uncontested as a major scar on the democratic claim of the elections; the low voter turn out in the remaining 147 seats and the violence. Major newspapers/magazines such as the NYT, Washington Post, and The Economist were very critical with the last named calling the elections “farcical”. Even in India whose government was the only country that backed the AL led government over the way it held the elections were critical. These reports were almost unanimous that the country would need another elections as soon as possible to correct the problems that the January 5th elections have created.
The reaction of foreign governments/foreign ambassadors and high commissioners :
The reaction among Bangladesh’s major development partners was negative. The United States, United Kingdom, the EU, Canada, Japan and Australia all concluded that the January 5th elections have hastened the need for a dialogue between the AL and the BNP to hold new elections as soon as possible. The United States went ahead of the others and stated that these elections must be held by either May or June. None of these governments sent any message of congratulations to the new government or the Prime Minister, as a sign of their conviction that the way the elections were held did not deserve any such message.
In the days following the elections, Dhaka witnessed something that was never witnessed in the country previously. The Ambassadors/ High Commissioners of all of Bangladesh’s development partner called on the BNP leader Begum Khaleda Zia without seeing anyone of the ruling party leaders where normally after an election, the diplomatic norm is to congratulate the ruling party and its Prime Minister. These meetings with the BNP without any with the government indicated clearly that the country’s development partners did not view the January 5th elections as legitimate and wanted the country to have new elections for which they urged negotiations/discussions between the ruling party and the BNP.
Reaction of India, Russia and China: Against the stand of the developed countries, India accepted the January 5th elections as a constitutional necessity. Indian Prime Minister also congratulated Sheikh Hasina. Russia followed India and sent congratulatory message to the Prime Minister. China that had before the elections taken the stand that Bangladesh’s freedom was at stake if the elections were held the way the AL led government had planned, also congratulated Sheikh Hasina. India had its own reasons that were understandable for strategic reasons although it would also have to explain when dust settles over this chapter of Bangladesh’s history how it could go against its democratic history and support such an undemocratic election in Bangladesh. In fact, the commonly held perception in Bangladesh is that had India been true to what it claims to believe in politics, Bangladesh could have very well avoided the undemocratic elections of January 5th. China of course has placed its economic interests overall else while Russia’s case was also one of economics with little concern about legitimacy of the elections. Perhaps it was also pay back for Bangladesh for its support for Russia for EXPO 2020 against Dubai that has now landed nearly 2 and a half million Bangladeshis in UAE in dire predicament.
Other non-western governments congratulate new government: There has been a concerted effort by the government to seek congratulatory messages from abroad to try and establish that the elections did not fail to gain legitimacy as the western nations, by their absence to congratulate the new government, has established. Unfortunately for the new government, most of the countries that came forward have failed to provide the legitimacy that the government wanted because of the absence of democratic practice and traditions in many of the countries that extended the congratulations.
Restoration of legitimacy to the government urgent for Bangladesh’s future: The most that can be said about the AL led government’s January election is that it has fulfilled a constitutional obligations. However, equally, it also cannot be denied that the elections have given the country a government that lacks legitimacy because the vast majority of the people were not given their constitutional right to vote and elect it. Therefore, the urgent need for the country is for the major parties led by the government to come together in discussions so that the people’s right to vote and elect the government of their choice is restored. In this context, it is for the government to realise that the stigma of lack of legitimacy is on its body and not that of the position.
The government would require that legitimacy to carry out its most important task ahead, namely the trial of war criminals. With 5% of the people having voted for this government, that mandate has weakened considerably. Its other important works that it has named in its election manifesto likewise cannot be undertaken based on the number of people behind this government. Of course, it is the people who want this legitimacy to be restored. They want a new election to regain their right to vote that was denied to them on January 5th. The millions of whom the political parties speak so passionately, the Projonmo, who were eagerly looking to vote but have been denied, want another election and their right to vote must be restored. The civil society has also spoken on the need of a new election to restore legitimacy of the government.
Against the need to restore legitimacy with a new election, a suggestion is being made by some within the ruling party that democracy could wait while violence and terrorism was tackled. This argument is a dangerous one because it is the element that in history those who have tried to remain in power by setting aside will of the people have always made. This is the corner stone of authoritarianism or fascism. In case of present Bangladesh, this argument does not hold because, the violence seen in the country surrounding the elections notwithstanding, the country is in no imminent threat of falling into terrorist hands by a long stretch of imagination that would require banishing democracy. In fact, many would argue the other way round; that banishing democracy would push Bangladesh towards terrorism.
[Ambassador M. Sirajul Islam, Member, The Dhaka Forum-a Think Tank-placed the paper at the Roundtable talk on 8th February 2014 held in the city]
[To be continued]
