No need for caretaker Government in Bangladesh

 How did the caretaker government system come into being in Bangladesh? After overthrow of the Gen Ershad’s autocratic regime in 1990 through mass upsurge, there was complete chaos and instability in the country with no formal government in position. So all the leading political and civil society leaders of Bangladesh reached a consensus and it was decided to organize general elections under supervision of a non-party caretaker government. The idea was to usher in a democratic government in the country. This was the only way to put an end to frequent military take-overs. Consequently, the first election under this interim arrangement was held in 1991 and this brought BNP to power.

After completion of its five year tenure in 1996, BNP was not in favour of the next parliamentary election being conducted by an interim government. The AL in cohort with other like minded parties moved for the establishment of caretaker government system to supervise the next general elections. As the BNP government opposed this move, AL and its allies boycotted the next parliamentary elections, but BNP pushed through the same.

Then, in the face of nationwide agitation, hartal, and non-cooperation movements launched by the AL, the BNP government had to resign and the parliament had to be dissolved after passing of the Thirteenth Constitution Amendment Act, 1996, that eventually paved the way for holding subsequent general elections under the caretaker government system. 

But a question arises - does Bangladesh really need a caretaker government to oversee every parliamentary election despite passage of 42 years since its emergence as a democratic country in 1971? Do the political leaders always require adult supervision of an un-elected caretaker government? They need to grow and mature, personally, professionally and politically. No other democratic country in the world has such a strange system of governance.

This brings us to a fundamental and basic question. Can undemocratic means, such as caretaker government, save democracy in the long run? It could be an undesired short-term fix, but must not be a long-term cure for democracy. Recent months have seen a resurgence of interest in Interim/Caretaker government in the country. The only argument proffered in this regard is that the incumbent government cannot be trusted to be neutral and to ensure free and fair elections.

Whenever general elections are held in any country, there are neutral election observers, including impressive arrays of foreign teams, to oversee the election process unhindered. Interestingly, their reports always make a very cogent point in their concluding remarks - that there were instances of irregularities and cases of malpractices, but these in no way, had affected the overall outcome of the general elections. And the voting was conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner.

The new government is then sworn in for a period of five years and they have the total power and full jurisdiction under, of course, all the laws of the land and subject to the rules and regulations set for conducting the state business. And they do so - good, bad - whatever may be the opinion of the people in general and the parties in opposition, the incumbent government holds sway over the state apparatus on the pledge to do their mandated jobs.

The same very government, whose coming to power was deemed constitutional and lawful, who had all the trust and expectations of the people to deliver suddenly becomes untrustworthy and unfit to undertake one of its final lawful act, constitutionally imposed, to arrange and hold the general elections in the country. One must also keep in mind that there is an independent Election Commission responsible for all the aspects of conducting this nation-wide exercise. There are law courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court as well. There are many neutral watchdogs and above all, there is a vast, vibrant and vigorous media, both electronic and print, with their investigative reports.

In no other democratic country in the world such a strange mechanism as caretaker government system has been installed. Why should Bangladesh have one even after 42 years of state existence? Is there any guarantee that this solution to a perceived problem would not itself become a more vicious problem as it happened in 2007 when an Army- backed caretaker government seized power in Bangladesh? This so-called caretaker government which ruled Bangladesh for two years was de-facto Army rule under the cover of caretaker government and it undermined all democratic norms and institutions.

This serves as a visible reminder as to how much a quick-fix formula like caretaker government could go wrong. The verdict of the highest court of the country on this issue has displayed its deepest wisdom in declaring the caretaker government system unlawful and ultra vires of the Constitution.

The caretaker government established in 1990 and enshrined in the constitution in 1996 is the product of the politicians’ mutual disrespect, distrust and disagreement. The preconditions for democracy to survive and flourish are healthy and truly independent democratic institutions that include the depoliticized civil administration, the military, the judiciary, the banking system, the Anti Corruption Commission, the Public Service Commission, all academic institutions, and above all, the Election Commission. Each must be equipped with competent, ethical and impartial individuals with sound and appropriate academic backgrounds. They all must be recruited and rewarded through a fair process with no political interferences. They must be kept non-partisan and their sanctity must be preserved.

It is not Caretaker government but a truly independent and strong Election Commission that is pre-requisite for free and fair elections to save democracy. The Election Commission must comprise of non-partisan, capable and bold members. To have such Election Commission what is required is political consensus across the board. If the political leaders care for the country, the people and the democracy, reaching such consensus should not be difficult at all. What is lacking is their true and moral commitment for the country.