The problem for young democracies is always to ensure that the electoral process is not influenced by an outgoing government. Since 1991, Bangladesh’s solution to this has been an appointed caretaker government to oversee the elections. The system, designed to prevent ruling parties from rigging polls, has worked generally well in three elections. But the Awami League now wants the system to be reformed to make it more efficient and reliable. The BNP is reluctant. The ensuing dispute, bitter and violent, has paralyzed life for three days in the country. The fact that it was comparatively calm yesterday, analysts attribute to the fear of the military coming back to power once again.
It all boils down to a question of trust. But so long as the main political parties are led by outgoing Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and opposition leader Hasina Wajed, mutual trust is a factor that can be counted out of Bangladesh politics. Their visceral hatred for each other is such that they cannot trust not only each other but also the persons the other trusts. This fear is not without reason either. A significant percentage of holders of public offices in Bangladesh believe that their loyalty should go to those who appointed them, not to the state or the people.
That is why the opposition Awami League insists that the chief election commissioner must be replaced since he is allegedly biased, wants electoral rolls updated and the whole electoral system reformed. It was for the same reason that there was violent opposition from Awami League supporters when former Supreme Court Chief Justice K.M. Hasan was named caretaker prime minister, which forced him to refuse the job. Now President Iajuddin Ahmed heads the interim government. He is supported by the BNP but the Awami League has so far refused to endorse his position. While the stalemate prevails, violent demonstrations continue and they have already cost 26 lives. This is a deplorable state of affairs. The longer it persists, the greater will be the risk of more deaths and injuries. Worse, the very health of Bangladesh’s democracy will be endangered. The acrimony between Hasina and Khaleda and their families has disfigured the country’s politics. One of the rare occasions they worked together was in 1990 when they both backed popular protests that saw the downfall of the corrupt military government of Gen. Hossain Mohammad Ershad. With the return of democracy, the compromise of a pre-election caretaker government was hammered out between the two leaders.
The tragedy of Bangladesh’s democracy after Ershad’s fall is that neither of the main parties has shown a willingness to accept electoral verdicts. While the winner takes it as a mandate for triumphalism and petty political revenge, the loser takes it as a mandate for paralyzing the country with continuous strikes. Appeals from their friends and the country’s well-wishers have fallen on deaf ears. If they continue to ignore the advice, analysts fear, there will come a voice they cannot ignore — that of the military generals and martial law.
Their country deserves better from them.
