Yesterday’s resignation by Bangladesh’s President Badruddoza Chowdhury just seven months into his five-year term of office tells a dismal tale. He did not go: he was pushed — and for reasons that will do little to convince anyone that Bangladesh has at long last achieved political maturity after years of military or unstable civilian governments.
Ostensibly, he has gone because of accusations within the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party that he had shown disrespect to former President Zia ur Rahman, the party’s founder and husband of Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, by not visiting his grave at last month’s anniversary of his 1981 assassination and by omitting to mention in a message commemorating the event that Zia ur Rahman had declared national independence. This latter point is a bone of contention in Bangladesh: the opposition Awami League claims that it was their founder and the leader of the freedom struggle Sheikh Mujib ur Rahman who first proclaimed independence.
Any lack of respect for Zia ur Rahman, an icon for the BNP, is hardly likely to go down well with the prime minister. Clearly, Chowdhury’s ousting has occurred with her blessing. But the bust-up is not simply about family pride. There is a much more overtly political reason for Chowdhury’s departure.
Constitutionally, the post of president in Bangladesh is largely symbolic. Real power is wielded by the prime minister. In the short time he was in office, Chowdhury tried to elevate the role of figurehead president into an impartial one, as happens in other countries, rather than remaining an creature of a particular party. That is what really irked BNP party leaders, including the prime minister. They resented, possibly feared, the development of Chowdhury’s independent presidency, even though his post had no power. In their minds, presidents are not to rise above party politics.
Such a view, together with the consequent upheaval, inevitably damages Bangladesh’s international image, particularly in countries and organizations that provide it, among the world’s most aid-dependent nations, with assistance. It must have come as something of a shock to them to hear BNP officials accusing Chowdhury of "behaving like a neutral person." In their view, that is precisely what he was supposed to be. A president is meant to be at the service of the entire nation, not of a single political party or section of society. It is different in countries with executive presidencies. But in those where the president is a figurehead, the expectation is for him to forget party allegiances once in the post, even if he was helped into office by a particular party because he was a member.
All that Chowdhury was trying to do was introduce the norm that exists elsewhere — and help mature Bangladesh’s political system. In India, Italy or Ireland, people would be astounded to hear accusations leveled against the president that he or she was behaving impartially. It is the contrary that would see them turned out of office. Bangladesh’s ruling BNP has made a blunder. The country needs to have, and be seen to have, a president of Chowdhury’s caliber, integrity and impartiality — not some party apparatchik. Confidence in it is bound to suffer as a result of this sad affair.
