Some reforms possible without consensus

The Judiciary Reform Commission has recommended that the judiciary have a separate secretariat and financial autonomy, which would reduce its dependence on the executive branch of the government. The Governor of Bangladesh Bank has also said that the government is, in principle, positive about granting them greater independence; but even if independence is granted, maintaining it will be difficult.

The Election Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission have been given considerable independence, yet they have never escaped the authority of the executive branch, and it seems unlikely that they ever will. If the mindset of an institution’s executive head is rigid, if there is blind loyalty to a political party or its ideology, or if there is attraction to bribery and corruption, then even complete independence of the institution becomes ineffective. In making independent decisions, the knowledge, dignity, courage, and capability of the institution’s policymakers are more important than laws or regulations. Therefore, before reforming the structure or laws of an institution, it is necessary to appoint people free from vested interest.

In Bangladesh, the judiciary’s independence is desired not only by the opposition but also by the ruling party. The judiciary was separated from the executive branch through legal processes in 2007; yet, to this day, the issue of judicial independence has not received unconditional support from the public. Due to a lack of legal knowledge, most people remain silent out of fear of contempt of court, though they still observe public rulings. Over the past 15 years, various parties, including BNP, have alleged that the judiciary operated according to the wishes of the Awami League government. Today, BNP no longer speaks about the judiciary, and there is little point in doing so; meanwhile, their party’s death-sentence convicts are being released from prison. Currently, judicial independence seems to be needed only for the Awami League, but when they were in power, they were oblivious, believing they would remain in power forever. A government capable of ensuring judicial independence may come to Bangladesh, but I am unlikely to live to see it.

Another reform seems urgently needed. According to Article 66 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, anyone who acquires citizenship of a foreign state or acknowledges allegiance to a foreign state cannot be a member of parliament or a minister. It appears this clause applies only to members of parliament, but logically, it should also apply to technocrat ministers, civil servants, or professionals. Despite this restriction, almost all past governments have included officials, MPs, or ministers who held foreign citizenship. Some advisers of the current caretaker government reportedly also hold foreign passports. There are complaints that a person cannot remain loyal to two countries at the same time, though one cannot renounce birthright citizenship. For example, in England, when the English cricket team plays, most Bangladeshi-origin supporters cheer for Bangladesh, even though most are English citizens. When foreign nationals of Bangladeshi origin have been included in government positions across administrations, violating the Constitution, perhaps it would be better to repeal this article entirely; yet, it is strange that it has not been done.

Law enforcement agencies have long been in the habit of planting weapons or drugs on targeted individuals to arrest them. This has been reported repeatedly in the media. No government has tried to stop it, because when opposition members need to be jailed, such misconduct requires government sanction. Salman F Rahman, adviser to the Awami League government, and Law Minister Anisul Haque, were handed over to law enforcement by the army, yet a staged drama of cutting beards and fleeing on a boat was orchestrated—admitted discreetly by adviser Brigadier General (retd.) M. Sakhawat Hossain. Such incidents occurred under a caretaker government committed to reform. Even during the grenade attack at the Awami League rally on 21 August, a judicial drama was staged. The practice of arresting and releasing suspects through bribes, often involving unknown persons rather than the actual perpetrators, continues. Law enforcement has historically carried out these acts with government consent, and it continues under the current caretaker government. This abuse will continue, with drugs and guns planted on targeted individuals, and the government will continue to endorse it.

If a crime occurs or someone is killed, law enforcement does not act independently without government approval, or even if informed, they insist on a written complaint before taking legal action. This is absurd. Another problem is more serious: complaints must be filed at the police station nearest to the incident, regardless of where the victim lives. In the internet age, it should be possible to file a GD or FIR at any station, regardless of location. A few months ago, after a robbery on a moving bus bound for Rajshahi, the Mirzapur and Baraigram police stations squabbled for three days before the case was finally registered at the originating Mirzapur station.

Such incidents are not new; I have heard of them since childhood. Decades ago, a newspaper reported a corpse lying for days on the border between two stations due to such disputes. Recently, my wife was mugged a few kilometres from our home; the local station said the complaint must be filed where the robbery occurred. If the robbers take away prepaid gas cards, a GD is necessary; otherwise, one might say, like actor ATM Shamsuzzaman, “Even if someone cuts me into pieces, I won’t go to the police.”

It is also unclear why duplicate academic certificates, ID cards, or gas cards require a public notice in the newspaper and a GD at the police station. Similarly, why is photo verification needed to submit applications after passing various exams, or why do recruitment procedures require police reports for passport or national ID holders? Today’s dishonest person can become honest tomorrow, and honest people can become dishonest. If police reports reliably judged character, corruption and bribery would not be so widespread. Secret intelligence reports are sometimes considered in promotions to gauge party loyalty—this practice should also end.

These rules give rise to bribery and corruption. The caretaker government has abolished police verification for passports, which is a commendable decision. Requiring secret reports from law enforcement in recruitment fosters corruption. If a citizen has a case against them or has been convicted, why should they be considered unsuitable for employment? Suspensions merely because someone is arrested are outdated, as innocent people can be falsely implicated, and sometimes cases are resolved only after the concerned employee retires.

Throughout the year, loudspeakers at events disturb not just patients but even healthy people, disrupting students’ studies. One student, unable to concentrate during annual exams due to loudspeakers, suffered mental distress and could not sit for exams; yet no one dares stop the loudspeakers. A law could easily prevent speakers being placed outside the event boundary.

Similarly, there are numerous complaints against airport and port staff over luggage handling, yet no solutions have been implemented. The reason for delays on airport baggage belts remains unknown. I have not travelled abroad for years, so I cannot confirm if suitcases are still being cut open.

During the Awami League government, “Eid” was spelled “Id” at the Bangla Academy; the caretaker government corrected it to “Eid.” Why do scholars’ interpretations change with governments? Why must so many ministers, officials, and ambassadors attend a prime minister’s departure at the airport? Why do politicians disrupt hospital treatment of accident victims with their entourage? This could be avoided if TV cameras were barred.

Election reforms are also needed. Nearly all candidates evade campaign finance rules. Why should an independent citizen need approval from just one percent of voters to run? Why maintain rules that make candidates inherently rule-breakers? Political parties nominate wealthy candidates because winning requires huge sums. Staying within Election Commission spending limits is nearly impossible. Candidates are corrupted before becoming MPs, so expecting good governance and accountability is unrealistic.

Why do governments seek control over CBAs in nearly every institution? Under government protection, some CBAs act like uncontrollable monsters, making decisions at will. Why must university teachers, students, lawyers, and doctors engage in partisan politics? One main reason is the desire to stay close to power. Lawyers supporting the ruling party gain psychological satisfaction and perhaps some advantages in cases. No one wants to reform disruptions caused by marches, rallies, or religious events. The opposition cannot be removed from streets as they claim constitutional rights, while governments call such actions illegal. Meanwhile, citizens suffer. Some reforms do not require political consensus; a caretaker government can implement them through executive orders to set examples for the future.

Zeauddin Ahmed: Former Executive Director, Bangladesh Bank