Clear the path for reform and economic progress

“Reform, reform, reform”—Dr Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Adviser of the caretaker government, repeated the word three times to emphasise the importance of reform. He called upon everyone to jump into reform initiatives and repeatedly urged for more and more discussion and review on the subject. Driven by a strong desire for reform, he quickly formed several reform commissions. These commissions submitted their reports, and opinions from various political parties have been taken—and are still being taken—regarding several of the commissions’ recommendations. Based on these opinions, the “July Charter” will be formulated, which will include the signatures of political parties. But all these activities are unrealistic and dreams that cannot be implemented. The ideological difference between the left and the right is as vast as the distance between the North Pole and the South Pole. Therefore, the reforms that come through the “July Charter” will be very limited and will not be able to prevent the emergence of an autocratic government.

In several of my earlier writings, I have clearly stated that the political parties differ in views, paths, and ideology. Any charter of consensus based on these differing views and ideologies will be limited and restrictive. Some are agents of India, some of Pakistan; some want immediate elections, some want time to reorganise their parties; some are admirers of ’24, others of ’71. Ending this division within the nation is nearly impossible. Dr Yunus had the opportunity to unite the nation—he even spoke of one family—but he did not walk that path.

According to Article 70 of the Constitution, if a Member of Parliament who has been elected under a party’s nomination resigns from the party or votes against the party in Parliament, their seat is considered vacant—such constraints do not allow MPs to express their views freely. Party MPs are compelled to raise their hands in favour of every bill presented by the party, and there is no room for dissent. Therefore, the Constitution Reform Commission has recommended the repeal of this article. One of the main reasons for incorporating this article into the constitution was to ensure unconditional loyalty of MPs to their parties. However, this provision also has its necessity; given the collapse of ethical standards in Bangladesh, Article 70 has made it impossible to buy and sell MPs. But repealing Article 70 alone does not necessarily ensure freedom of expression. If the practice of voice voting—saying “yes” or “no”—is maintained, then even after repealing Article 70, no MP will dare to vote outside party lines. In this case, conducting electronic voting via secret ballot may be somewhat effective.

The three political parties that have held power in Bangladesh are all confined within familial dynasties. Within the parties, Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia, and GM Quader are more important than knowledgeable, capable, and experienced leaders. Due to the absence of democracy within the parties, no one respects anyone else, which is why Sheikh Hasina was brought back from abroad and made party president to prevent a party split. After the death of Ziaur Rahman, housewife Khaleda Zia had to take charge of the BNP, and in the absence of Hussain Muhammad Ershad, no one other than Rawshan Ershad or GM Quader can even be considered for party leadership. The people of the country are also blindly loyal to such leadership.

The top leaders of the parties, realising their indispensability, have become accustomed to fascist behaviour—their words become unbreakable laws for the party, and no member dares violate them. Therefore, even if Article 70 is repealed, no member will speak outside party lines; if an MP votes against the party decision in Parliament, they will not get a nomination next time. Even President B Chowdhury was disgraced for not listening to the party. Almost all political party leaders and workers in Bangladesh rise and sit according to the words of the top leader; in such a situation, whether Article 70 of the Constitution stays or goes makes little difference.

The Reform Commission's recommendation that no one can be Prime Minister more than twice is opposed by the BNP, which argues not twice, but thrice; after serving two terms, an individual may serve a third term as Prime Minister with a one-term gap. The BNP knows that if the Awami League is absent from politics, they are the champions in the electoral field—like Putin in Russia, becoming President after two terms as Prime Minister and then Prime Minister again for the fourth term. The BNP wants the current system to continue whereby nominated candidates win in constituencies and go to Parliament. But the Reform Commission and Jamaat-e-Islami want parliamentary seats to be distributed nationwide based on the votes received by parties, not individual candidates—people will vote for party symbols. Since a sure victory seems likely, the BNP is unlikely to abandon its stance. Another proposal from the Reform Commission is that the person who becomes Prime Minister should not remain as party chief. But this is a meaningless proposal.

As mentioned earlier, Bangladesh’s political parties operate under the sole leadership and authority of the top person; so wherever they may be, it has no bearing on governance of the party or state. Like Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or kings of the Middle East, politics and administration operate by their word. Obaidul Quader of the Awami League used to say “Prime Minister” in everything. The same applies to BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam. Ershad even publicly declared, “Whatever I say in the Jatiya Party is law.” The people of the country have seen the top leader’s authority in the obedience of Abdur Rahman Biswas; even after becoming President, he rushed to Khaleda Zia upon hearing her call, forgetting all protocol. Therefore, whether the top leader remains as “Prime Minister” or “Party Chief” or holds both posts—trying to restrict that by law is meaningless.

The Reform Commission has proposed two chambers of Parliament—Upper House and Lower House. It has also proposed increasing the number of parliamentary seats. To prevent autocracy, an upper house is considered essential because all bills passed in the lower house must be approved again in the upper house. There is intense disagreement among political parties over this proposal. The BNP wants seats in the upper house to be allocated according to the seats held in the lower house, while others propose seat allocation based on total votes received in the general election. If the BNP’s proposal is accepted, the ruling party will have a majority in both houses, and the upper house will not be able to obstruct arbitrary lawmaking by the ruling party in the lower house.

If the upper house is formed according to the BNP’s proposal, it will become a recreational club for wealthy and opportunistic intellectuals. If other parties’ proposals are accepted, and seats are allocated based on total votes in the national election, then opposition parties will hold the majority in the upper house. This is because no single party has ever received 50 percent of the vote in a fair election, but the combined votes of the remaining parties and independent candidates have always exceeded 50 percent. Therefore, if seats in the upper house are allocated based on vote count, the united opposition will dominate the upper house. But that also has problems—it may create gridlock in passing bills, and MPs in the upper house may become commodities for buying and selling.

If reform efforts begin against bribery and corruption, a steel-strong unity will arise among supporters of all parties in institutions like the National Board of Revenue. Only the depositors in banks have not yet formed such a unity. Ever since bank reforms started with contradictory statements from policymakers, the public has stopped getting their deposited money back. At first, it was said that not a single taka would be given to bankrupt banks from Bangladesh Bank, but later 520 billion taka was given. However, due to the loss of confidence, even sacks of cash cannot now prevent bankruptcy. A cat-and-mouse game has begun between bank depositors and branch managers; when a depositor is seen near a bank, the branch manager gets scared, tries to hide, shuts the gate. Even during the looting of banks under the Awami League government, this problem did not reach such an extreme; the situation worsened after reform efforts began. But if the country’s economy is not healthy, treating only the banks will not be enough to cure the disease.

Reform cannot be done through democracy—most people in the country are regressive in thought. Those who were ahead of their time in thinking were considered “mad,” poisoned to death, had their tongues cut off, were burned to death, or torn to pieces and fed to wild animals. Therefore, reform must be authoritarian, even despotic. Ayub Khan could not have enacted family laws in a country like Pakistan if he had not been a military ruler. There was resentment against this law even then, but Ayub Khan remained firm and unshakable. So, if one is obsessed with power and desperately wants to be popular, it is better not to engage in revolutionary reform.

Zeauddin Ahmed: Former Executive Director, Bangladesh Bank