Consensus Commission: What if BNP does not agree

The National Consensus Commission is holding continuous dialogues with political parties on various issues of state reform; but on July 11, after a meeting of the commission, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed expressed his anger about not being given a turn to speak before the media and was about to leave without speaking to journalists. His question was, "Is BNP the 5th party that it has to speak 5th?"

News reports say that after the meeting that day, the commission’s vice-chairman Professor Ali Riaz and leaders of political parties came down to the designated room for the press conference. Ali Riaz spoke first. Immediately after him came Zonayed Saki, the chief coordinator of Ganosanghati Andolon. BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed was standing beside them at the time; but just after Zonayed Saki left, Ashraf Ali Akon, a presidium member of Islami Andolon, sat down at the press conference and began speaking. This made Salahuddin Ahmed angry and he was about to leave without participating in the press conference. While getting into his car, when some journalists invited him to join the press conference, he said, "You are not even maintaining a queue here, small parties sit and speak, is this acceptable? I’m leaving."

Half a month later, on Monday (July 28), BNP walked out of the commission’s meeting. On the 20th day of the second round of dialogue at the Foreign Service Academy in the capital, discussions began in the morning as per the agenda. After a while, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed walked out. He rejoined the meeting at 12:15pm. That day, BNP announced it would not participate in discussions on proposed provisions for appointing members to the Public Service Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the Ombudsman.

Notably, after the interim government took charge, it initiated reforms in various sectors. Formally, the process began in October last year with the formation of commissions for reforming the constitution, electoral system, judiciary, Anti-Corruption Commission, public administration, and police. In February, the commissions submitted full reports. Later, with the aim of building consensus, the National Consensus Commission was formed under the leadership of the Chief Adviser, comprising the heads of these six commissions. The Consensus Commission collected feedback from political parties in tabular format on 166 key reform recommendations. Then, from March 20, individual discussions with parties began, continuing until May 19. On June 2, Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus inaugurated the second phase of discussions.

The question is, if a major party like BNP does not engage in discussions on a particular issue or does not want to, will consensus and decision-making on that matter be possible? The question arises because among the parties participating in the dialogue, only BNP had previously governed the country alone. Among the other parties, although Jamaat was part of the government, it never formed a government independently. So, if 29 parties agree on an issue and BNP disagrees, will the proposal not be accepted? Because in a democracy, there is a convention of accepting the opinion of the majority.

It is true that the Consensus Commission’s dialogue is aimed at establishing rules for political competition so that no one gets a unilateral advantage. These discussions are meant to ensure that elections are properly held and everyone can vote without fear. Also, arrangements must be made so that future elections do not resemble those in the past, and that no party, upon coming to power, can do whatever it wants with a two-thirds majority. Therefore, if BNP alone vetoes or disagrees with something, will that not be adopted?

But the problem is, questions have already been raised about the qualifications, intentions, and partiality of those responsible for reforming the state and setting rules. If the government had been able to prove its competence and neutrality from the beginning, such questions would not have arisen; but a perception has developed among the public that this government does not really want to hold elections or does not even have the capacity to conduct them. Such a perception should not have developed. In fact, this government was expected to be the most neutral and acceptable in the country's history. Moreover, reforms of the state and major decisions are being discussed with parties and sides that have little public support. People do not even know them.

So far in Bangladesh’s history, three political parties (BNP, Awami League, and Jatiya Party) have independently held the responsibility of governing; but the dialogue that is being held now to make policy decisions such as reforms in different state sectors, constitutional amendments, and changes in the electoral system, does not include the two major parties of the country. Due to the coup, Awami League and Jatiya Party were not invited to the dialogue for practical reasons; but in terms of past election experience, how many votes do these two parties have? If a free and fair election is held now and these two parties participate, won’t they receive a significant number of votes? If these two parties together have 25 to 30 percent of the vote, how can a national consensus be achieved by excluding two parties that represent such a large number of people?

Therefore, since Awami League and Jatiya Party are not part of this dialogue, BNP is now the largest and most important party here. If they hold a different position on a matter for a logical reason, just because the remaining 29 parties or alliances agree does not make it easy to implement. Because here BNP cannot be compared to any other party or alliance. The notion that if the majority agrees on an issue it must be accepted is not always correct. In that case, one must consider who the majority consists of. What is their public support, popularity, and experience?

Again, the current support for Awami League and Jatiya Party or how many people vote for them cannot be known without a proper election. Therefore, a free, fair, neutral, and acceptable election is the only solution. Those whom people vote for will make state decisions. Without the people’s mandate, whether the Consensus Commission or the interim government can make decisions on state policy is a big question. If people vote Jamaat or NCP into power, then decisions will be made under their leadership. Political decisions being made under the leadership of non-political people is not good for democracy.

It cannot be denied that the main job of the interim government is to transfer power quickly to an elected government through a free, fair, and acceptable election; but instead of doing that, the initiatives they have taken in the name of reform and the way time is being wasted—no real reform is happening. Instead, the election process is being delayed and the rule of some incompetent people is being prolonged.

Although it cannot be said with certainty that if BNP or any other party comes to power, looting will stop, the state is a political institution, so its management must remain in the hands of politicians. Running the country is not the job of civil society. Their job is to advise. To point out the government's mistakes.

What will happen with the July Charter
Regarding Monday’s walkout, BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed said, “We have agreed that MPs should be able to vote independently and by secret ballot in presidential elections. Consensus is being built. Now if we are asked to agree 100 percent with all the proposals of the National Consensus Commission, then what is the point of inviting us for discussion?”

Not only BNP, but several other parties have raised objections about the unity process. Recently, Nurul Haque Nur, President of Gana-Adhikar Parishad, said, “There is doubt as to how much consensus will be reached in the process by which national consensus is being attempted. Some parties are completely rigid in their positions. If this continues, I see no possibility of unity until the end of time.”

It is being said that the issues on which political parties agree will be included in the July Charter or National Charter and signed; but on the same day BNP walked out, Nahid Islam, convener of National Citizen Party (NCP), said that unless consensus is reached on the proportional representation system for the upcoming election, there is doubt whether they will sign the July Charter. He said, “The most important issue is the Upper House. We said the Upper House must be based on voter proportion, must follow PR. This Upper House is important for the balance of power and accountability. Consensus on this issue has not been reached yet. If everyone does not agree on this issue, we have doubts about signing the July Charter.”

That means the July Charter must be written exactly as NCP wants, or they won’t sign it? And if it is written exactly as they want, will all other parties including BNP accept it? Suppose all parties accept it except BNP—what happens then? So, it is not unreasonable to assume that the politics over the July Charter may soon become turbulent.

Amin Al Rashid: Journalist and writer