The State of Emergency: Riding a Tiger?

There is a small church southeast of Rome. It is at this spot that Saint Peter supposedly met Jesus while the former was fleeing persecution in Rome. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, Peter asked Jesus, Domine, quo vadis? (Lord, where are you going?) Jesus answered Eo Romam iterum crucifigi (I am going to Rome to be crucified anew).

A PROBE analysis

The State of Emergency declared on 11 January 2007 by the President, halting the process of a constitutional obligation of holding a scheduled parliamentary election, has dramatically changed the political scenario of Bangladesh. Without engaging in a debate on the circumstances and the merits of the Emergency proclamation, we can safely say that the transfer of power to an elected government is now uncertain, at least in terms of a known timeframe. The speech of the President rationalizing the emergency and the speeches of the Chief Adviser (CA) of the caretaker government narrating the tasks ahead amply show that demands of certain political alliances related to electoral reforms have given lot of breathing space to the government in keeping the election schedule a matter of speculation.

The present uneasiness of Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) about the looming danger of a protracted presence of the emergency rule is a manifestation of a perceived grey future of their politics and their leaders. The not too unexpected appearance of Dr. Yunus on the political horizon is probably not helping the mainstream political actors in gaining confidence on a quick transfer of power by listening to the oft repeated sentence as soon as possible.

The actions taken by the Caretaker Government, after emergency, and their declared programme of actions, are essentially aiming at long-term changes in the body politic of the country. There was initially a speculation that the government would, using its emergency power, introduce EBDO – Electoral Bodies Disqualification Order, like the one President Ayub Khan imposed under Martial Law in 1958. It disqualified 78 politicians from contesting any elections till 1966. EBDO included leaders like Hossain Shahid Suhrawardi and was eventually withdrawn after the 1962 constitution was adopted. The name EBDO is not there yet, but the Adviser for Law of the present regime has already mentioned their intention of debarring politicians and others from contesting elections if convicted of corruption and other offences of which they are being charged. This law needs to be consistent to the constitutional provision (not an electoral law, which could be changed with a simple legal act) specifying ineligibility to contest parliamentary elections under Article 66 (2d). One can assume that this debarring of some people from contesting elections and many other actions of the present regime may be challenged legally. Accordingly one can also assume that to prevent it from happening before transfer of power, the elections would be held during emergency.

The next issue that comes to the minds of many is how the actions of Caretaker Government get legal sanction after emergency is over and power is transferred to an elected government. The first issue would obviously be the failure of the Caretaker Government to hold parliamentary election within the stipulated time. Is a Pandora’s Box hidden in that issue?

One may recollect the events surrounding the eventual cancellation of the parliamentary election of 22 January 2007. First came the declaration of emergency (election finally may be held under emergency, after all), then the resignation of the President from Chief Adviser’s position and selection of a new Chief Adviser, all in one night. Then after some days of uncertainty, Bangabhaban asked the Election Commission to cancel the election. Who would respond to the query of the court if these actions are challenged later? Surely the Ambassadors who were very active those days and nights, meeting leading civilians and others, are not going to stand as witness to defend these actions. There is also no possibility that the famous letter from the UN (its origin is not clear- local or from the UN HQ) could be produced as evidence for those actions, pointing to the great danger of missing foreign currency earnings for the country. So far some lawyers, who staunchly opposed holding an election without their favourites, suggested that the next parliament would ratify/approve all these actions. This statement implies that these actions in essence require legal cover in an ex post manner. It is clearly a grey proposition as there is no guarantee of an election result that could allow such accommodation. How do you than get down from the back of the tiger called the State of Emergency?

We had in our recent history regimes run by emergency laws and martial laws since 1947. This is the first time we have an emergency given by an unelected civilian government (keeping mind, of course, the declaration was in the name of the President, elected by the parliament). Surely we are gaining new experience. We do have a civilian government backed by the armed forces. They have ostensibly common interests in holding the election to transfer power to the elected government. They have also cleared their views on the standards of the politicians to come through election and started formulating those standards. The Chief Adviser has not so far missed one opportunity to blame a few greedy people destroying the country. How would they prevent another set of greedy people coming back to the helm of affairs is not yet clear. Can they prevent the son or a daughter or a brother (very likely a beneficiary of the corruption) of a debarred politician popular in a certain constituency to come to the ruling party? Do they recognize that politics here is like religion – not dependent on reason or logic, almost like tribal loyalty? Of course, some leaders may abandon their respective camps, but the grassroots loyalty is hardly shaken by newspaper or TV reports or, for that matter, court judgments.

What then would be the likely scenario of the next election, assuming it is held by the present government? Scenario one, an election participated by all mainstream parties without some of their previous candidates, including Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Scenario two, an election participated by the main parties without some senior politicians but with the two ladies. Scenario three, an election without the participation of the two main parties. All these scenarios could be with or without the presence of the two ladies in the country. In all probability, only scenario two has the chance of holding a violence-free election. Dr. Yunus or his Nagorik Shakti is certainly not going to put a major dent in the fortress of the two main parties on a level playing field, under scenario two. If we forget the sustainability issue, only in the case of third scenario Dr. Yunus may have a chance in an election. Of course, he can take the driving seat of the country without an election which would be a different ball game. It is difficult to visualize that the present government (whoever is calling the shots) is working to create a situation to allow old wine to come back in a new bottle. So far, despite calling itself caretaker government, they have not shown hesitation to go beyond the limited task of cooperating with the Election Commission to hold an election and exercise the routine functions of the government, as stipulated in the Constitution.

Since Dr. Yunus declared his intention to float a party and started talking about Chittagong Port as well as other issues, the normally monolithic civil society (talking of the most visible and the most vocal one) has witnessed a slow polarization. Our super citizens are now divided on two lines. One group is not very comfortable with him but is paying back their debt to their long-term sponsors by actively or tacitly supporting Dr. Yunus. Interestingly, the persons and the organizations closely supporting Dr. Yunus had started the journey of their organizations (including Grameen Bank) from the same sponsor’s money. The other group is showing their loyalty to their original political heritage, by expressing resentment against him. The euphoria over his getting the Nobel Prize for Peace is over and now some people have started looking at him suspiciously. Stretching out the imagination to a far end they consider him to be the agent of exploiters of the natural resources of the country. In the melee, people forgot to ask if Dr. Kamal Hossain is still with the 'Moha Jote' or not. Some paper reported that Dr. Kamal’s law firm is doing all the legal homework for the present government. Probably it is time also for Sheikh Hasina to call white, white and black, black.

It is difficult to conceive the present regime as a Caretaker Government as envisaged in the Constitution, not in spirit even if it is in letter. The shock effect of the emergency declaration is gradually waning and the main political parties have started calling for the parliamentary election after 120 days from the date of Emergency Declaration. In accordance with the Constitution, the emergency expires after 120 days (11 May 2007), unless declared again. The issue of the tenure of President, completing in September 2007, may surface soon. The budget preparation of the Government would soon expose the Government position on the demand for the election within 120 days. The regime has so far maintained its civilian face and enjoyed a kind of tacit acceptance of the emergency, if not support, from the major political parties. It has not yet faced any resistance in the streets nor faced any major legal challenge. It has succeeded in sustaining the half-way house built on 11 January 2007 where there had not been any fundamental conflict over running the state between the two faces of the Government. The principal contradiction, however, is the secular democratic approach of the sponsors (local and foreign) and the essential liberal Islam of the other. Any crisis in handling a challenge either in the streets or in the court may wipe off the sugar-coating and a more determined monolithic power center may emerge. This may be a measure not stemming out of convenience, but from the need for insulating the regime from losing control of its own support base.

Bangladesh has come a long way since 1975 when the newly independent country experienced a military rule as the rulers miserably failed in their task of governing the state. The subsequent decades witnessed military and quasi-military rule with mixed results in running the affairs of the state. People thought that the year 1991, with the first credible election, ushered in a new era of democratic rule in the country and expectations were raised with another good election in 2001. But the great political divide in the country, the weak governance with associated evils and some interested quarters apparently put the clock back to the seventies and early eighties. The political canvas of the country, over the years, became much bigger and complex with the inclusion of many factors. The country has again become susceptible to a long period of instability unless wisdom and patriotism prevail. We should ask the leaders of the present regime if they know where they are leading us. Bangladesh, quo vadis?