Apolitical regimes in this part of the world always make the mistake of thinking that they can take on the political parties in power politics and somehow beat them at their own game. In the long-run, they never can. There is little reason, therefore, to begrudge our present rulers for their failure. They were doomed from the start. It is only unfortunately that they themselves were so caught up in a sort of messianic trance that they did not realise the futility of their efforts, writes Shameran Abed
AFTER a year and a half of promising to reform the electoral system, the administrative system, the judicial system, the political system and – this really is the clincher – the polity itself, the interim government is only now realising the naivety of its outlook and the folly of its ambitions. Reality, it appears, has finally caught up with our present rulers. According to an adviser to the government, there is no longer time to 'do reform work' that is not directly related to elections. It seems to imply that the regime's ambitious plans to bring about administrative reforms have now been shelved with little or nothing to show for.
This interim government never had the constitutional authority to bring about the kind of reforms that it had promised. Over the course of the last year and a half, it has proved that it lacks the capacity and the ability to bring about qualitative change in the system as well. Its so-called reforms have thus far amounted to personnel changes at key institutions. The Election Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Public Service Commission were all reconstituted within a few months of this regime's assumption of power, but real institutional reforms have not taken place since.
The anti-corruption campaign, which is without doubt the flagship programme of this government, has all but lost credibility because of the regime's predisposition to use it as a tool for political engineering. Unfortunately for the regime, the attempts at rearranging the political landscape have failed miserably so far as well. If proof of this was at all needed, the results of the local government elections held last week to four city corporations and nine municipalities have clearly demonstrated that the old political order remains intact. The government may have been successful in creating a few rifts within the two major parties, especially within the Bangladesh Nationalist Party which is still in relative disarray. However, the relevance and mass appeal of the BNP and the Awami League do not appear to have been diminished in any way, even after the concerted efforts of the regime and its surrogates to discredit the two parties and their leadership as part of a larger programme to discredit the political process altogether.
This regime has always tried to justify its extended stay in power and the perpetuation of the repressive state of emergency that has constituted its backbone by saying that it was laying the foundations for better governance and a stronger democracy. These were pipe dreams to begin with. Military-controlled regimes, in whatever form they appear, may be useful for short-term shock therapy when things appear to be going out of control but are essentially counterproductive for the long-term democratic growth of society. This has been proved time and time again by governments of this nature the world over.
Also, apolitical regimes in this part of the world always make the mistake of thinking that they can take on the political parties in power politics and somehow beat them at their own game. In the long-run, they never can. There is little reason, therefore, to begrudge our present rulers for their failure. They were doomed from the start. It is only unfortunately that they themselves were so caught up in a sort of messianic trance that they did not realise the futility of their efforts.
What is hugely disappointing is that by massively over-reaching and ending up woefully short, this regime failed to bring about some of the changes that were within its reach. For example, it could have spent far more time and effort in bolstering the authority and capacity of the Election Commission to ensure that it is able to enforce electoral rules. The adoption of new rules, which are seemingly imminent, are necessary but there is little confidence that the commission, as it stands today, will be able to enforce those rules before and during the next general elections, or any future elections for that matter. Is the commission any more likely today than it was two years ago to ensure that candidates remain within their election spending limits in the run up to elections? The proposed raising of that limit itself may be practical, but work should also have gone into enhancing the commission's ability to detect breaches of its rules and to take violators to task.
This government also had an opportunity to work on necessary administrative reforms to improve service delivery by the civil administration, even if only to present a coherent and practical set of proposals for the next elected government to implement. This did not happen either. For over a year and a half, the regime has been so busy trying to implement its perceive political plan, the most significant component of which is the political neutralisation of BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia and AL president Sheikh Hasina, that it neglected even the most essential areas where reforms are necessary and where it, as a non-party government, could have added value to the process. Cosmetic changes such as the reconstitution of the Public Service Commission may improve the process of government officer intake but will not improve governance.
Now, the government is apparently having to abandon 'reform work', without having made any real headway, to focus on holding the next general elections. And in order to ensure that the elections are contested and credible, it is having to enter into covert deals with the leaders of the major political parties to ensure the participation of their parties. This is not only further eroding the credibility of the anti-corruption campaign of the government but is also a making a mockery of the rule of law. The entire exercise also undermines the democratic process. So much for this regime strengthening democracy.
In the final analysis, therefore, not only did this regime not deliver on the reforms that it promised but has made our democratic path more difficult to navigate. And worst of all, it has already wasted 19 months of this nation's time while doing so and looks set to waste at least a few more. Would we have been any worse off had elections been held one year back? Would we have missed out on any real reform that has taken place since? Would we have elected a worse government one year ago than the one we are likely to elect in a few months (if the elections are free and fair)?
The current regime tried to position itself as the 'caretaker government' to end all caretaker governments. It would end corruption, clean up the electoral process, bring decency and respect back into politics and infuse dynamism and accountability into the administration. Not only would it change the nature of politics and government but would ensure also that future governments are better than the ones that governed us in the past. Now that it realises that it will end up doing none of that, how will it salvage its legacy?
NEWSPAPER
__._,_.___ [* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.
* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
