Shameran Abed

THE current Election Commission could not have done more to ensure the erosion of its credibility and the loss of the electorate's faith in its ability to deliver proper elections if it had actively tried to do so. In a little over a year after its reconstitution, which was meant to signal a fresh start after the controversial justices, MA Aziz and Mahfuzur Rahman, had made the last commission dysfunctional and fair elections impossible, the reconstituted commission, it appears, is trying its best to distinguish itself only for ineptitude and incompetence. The commission has not been able to meet even half of its deadlines up until now, a dismally poor showing even by its own slow standards. This is extremely unfortunate for us all, for at a time when our country is being governed by a military-controlled regime with suspect democratic credentials, the Election Commission is the one institution that could have guaranteed an early and peaceful transition to an elected government and kept the train of constitutionalism largely on track. At the very least, it could have attempted to do so.

However, for that to have happened, the reconstituted commission needed to have acknowledged and internalised certain basic facts. First, while the caretaker government of Iajuddin Ahmed was mainly responsible for the failure to bring all parties to the parliamentary elections that were scheduled for January 22, 2007, it is the commission that has violated the constitution by indefinitely stalling the scheduled elections following the January 11 intervention. Article 123(2) of our constitution states that 'a general election of members of Parliament shall be held within ninety days after Parliament is dissolved, whether by reason of the expiration of its term or otherwise than by such expiration.' Hence, as article 119 makes the holding of elections of members of parliament one of the basic functions of the Election Commission, the failure to do so within the stipulated ninety days is a clear breach by the commission, even though the caretaker government was primarily to blame.

And second, after a parliament is dissolved, it is the Election Commission that is given the power and authority to set the agenda for elections to the next parliament. The responsibility of a caretaker government, as mandated by our constitution under Article 58D(2), is to 'give to the Election Commission all possible aid and assistance that may be required for holding the general election of members of Parliament peacefully, fairly and impartially' and to carry on the routine functions of government during the period of transition from one elected government to the next. Hence, it is the commission that is meant to play the principal role in the election process, a role that a caretaker administration is supposed to support and supplement.

Unfortunately, the current Election Commission seems to have failed to grasp the significance and enormity of the responsibility that our constitution places on its shoulders. From the very beginning, the election commissioners have appeared unaware of the fact that the commission is in serious breach of the constitution and that the only way to maintain a semblance of constitutionalism would be to waste little time in getting a parliament elected. Instead, the commission has behaved as if it has all that time in the world, not only by showing a distinct lack of urgency but by intentionally foot-dragging in order to delay elections as much as possible. Also, instead of taking the bull by its horns and setting an agenda for elections as early as possible despite this government's grand plans of political restructuring, the commission has given the clear impression that the interim government is the principal actor in the holding of the next parliamentary elections and the commission is a sideshow that exists in order to promote the perceived political agenda of this government. It took the commission almost six months to come up with an electoral 'roadmap', one which pushed back elections a further year and a half, thereby giving this regime enough time to figure out, settle on and implement its political designs.

If the 'roadmap' was a major disappointment, especially after the way it was trumpeted as a blueprint for democracy, the round of dialogues that the commission held with the political parties to discuss electoral reforms was an absolute fiasco. The commission managed to sit with every major political party other than the one that commanded, along with its allies, a two-thirds majority in the last parliament – the Bangladesh Nationalist Party of Khaleda Zia. The commission, in its infinite wisdom and having promised to follow the constitution of the BNP for guidance after two distinct factions emerged in the party, invited the wrong faction to the dialogue. Instead of sending its letter of invitation to the secretary-general appointed by the party chairperson in exercise of the authority given to her by the BNP's constitution, the commission sent its letter to the secretary-general of a rival faction which had tried to undermine the authority of the chairperson by staging a sudden and late-night 'meeting' of members of the party's standing committee. Not only did the High Court stay the commission's invitation, four senior members of the BNP's standing committee who had attended that late-night rendezvous have since stated that they had gone for tea to a party colleague's house and that the get-together did not constitute a meeting of the standing committee, which only the party chair is authorised to convene. Once again, the Election Commission's eagerness to support and advance the political agenda of the current regime was made plain for all to see, a humiliating debacle that has greatly diminished the people's faith in its impartiality.

Now, having failed to complete its round the last time around and without settling on a clear answer to the BNP question, the commission is once again planning to sit with the major political parties and has declared a schedule for talks. Demonstrating a bullishness and exuberance unbecoming of a commission that has thus far failed to live up to the expectations of the electorate, the commission has suggested that it will only include the BNP in the talks if the High Court gives a clear direction, not otherwise. Unfortunately, the commission is still not ready to acknowledge the fact that it made a mistake the last time around and nor does it realise that a process of dialogues with political parties on electoral reforms will not be credible or acceptable to anyone if it does not include one or the other of the two major political parties in our country, the Awami League and the BNP. Once again, therefore, the commission is setting itself up for an exercise in futility and it will hardly be surprising if a third round of dialogues is later deemed necessary, one which includes the mainstream BNP, in order to have the process itself considered meaningful.

Therefore, the Election Commission should stop this monkey business at once and take the lead in setting the agenda for parliamentary elections. It will be judged on its ability to deliver proper elections, not on its success in playing accomplice to this regime in its apparent attempts at intervening within political parties and in the political process.