What reforms came in 'DUCSU’ and ‘JUCSU' elections

A day after the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (DUCSU) election, the Jahangirnagar University Central Students’ Union (JUCSU) election was also boycotted by the panel backed by BNP’s student wing, the Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal. At around 3:30 pm on Thursday, an hour and a half before the end of polling, they announced their boycott. Their allegation was that the election was not being conducted properly because of widespread irregularities, vote rigging and administrative bias. The panel’s General Secretary (GS) candidate Tanzila Hossain Baishakhi said, ‘From the very beginning we feared it would be a staged election.’

She alleged irregularities in polling, fake voting, use of forged ballot papers, obstruction of polling agents, and special advantages given to Shibir-backed candidates. After this, a few other panels also boycotted. At press conferences, the Sampriti Oikya, Swadhin Angikar Parishad and Sangsoptok Parishad panels said that violating election rules, one Shibir panel was distributing leaflets hand to hand in several centres; even inside booths at Jahanara Imam Hall, leaflets of two panels (Jitu+Shibir) were seen displayed side by side.

Because of the utter mismanagement, negligence and failure of the Election Commission and the administration, questions about the acceptability of this election are inevitable. Preventing polling agents from working, male candidates entering female halls, voter lists without photos, voters’ fingers not being inked, names missing from the list even after eligibility, printing more ballots than voters, line jamming, presence of outsiders—due to these many irregularities, mismanagements and lapses, doubts and questions have risen around this election.

Not only candidates, a few teachers involved in election duties also boycotted the polls—teachers known to belong to the Nationalist Forum. They said they waited a long time for ink; but when it arrived, it turned out not to be indelible. As a result, one voter cast multiple votes. Boycotting teachers also alleged chaos and mismanagement in different halls and aggressive behaviour by activists of a particular group against others.

There is a slight difference between candidates boycotting and teachers on duty boycotting. Candidates observe irregularities and fraud from some distance, partly guessing; but teachers directly involved in polling and management see them up close. Therefore, the teachers’ boycott itself shows how the voting went at Jahangirnagar. However, whether those teachers boycotted only for political reasons is not entirely certain.

Just a day earlier, on 9 September, Shibir-backed candidates won the full panel in the DUCSU election at Dhaka University. The margin between them and their closest rival, the Chhatra Dal candidates, was also large. There too, during and after voting, Chhatra Dal alleged irregularities and rigging. Independent VP candidate Umama Fatema wrote in a Facebook post: "After 5 August, Dhaka University administration has again handed shame to the nation. An administration kept by Shibir." Then, at Jahangirnagar, the same allegation was raised against the university administration of favouring Shibir, which cannot be dismissed lightly.

In fact, compared to Dhaka University, the allegations of irregularities and mismanagement at Jahangirnagar were much more specific and extensive. The question is, why could these first two elections under the non-partisan interim government not be kept free of controversy and above question? If the allegation of administrative bias in favour of Shibir is true, then the question arises: after the uprising, have universities gone under Shibir’s control? At present, the country is being run under a non-partisan government, so there is no ruling or opposition party.

Therefore, a level playing field in student union elections should have been ensured; but allegations are that this was not done or not possible in DUCSU and JUCSU. Past experience shows that when a party is in power, universities come under control of its student organisation. So now, with the dominance of student Shibir in various universities, and allegations of bias by the Election Commission and administrations in favour of Shibir’s candidates, it is only natural that the question arises: is Shibir the ruling party’s student wing?

Another question also needs settling: the word ‘reform’, which people have heard so often over the past year, to the point of memorisation—how far has its touch reached universities, and what reforms have come to the electoral system of the country? How much has changed in the mindset of university teachers? Will teachers in the administration of universities continue the same subservience to governments and political parties? In the days of political governments, vice-chancellors and pro-vice-chancellors were appointed on political grounds. Has the interim government been able to leave that culture behind?

Another example that the mindset of university teachers has not changed much has come from Chittagong University. On the very day of the student union election at Jahangirnagar, the authorities at Chittagong University organised a discussion meeting at noon ahead of the central students’ union (CUCSU) and hall elections; but Chhatra Dal walked out of the meeting. Their complaint was that students were not given proper opportunity to express opinions. A rule was set that no one could ask more than one question. Such an arrangement that does not listen to students is not truly a discussion meeting.

Moreover, instead of directly answering students’ questions, the Election Commission shifted them to the university administration. Compared to what happened at DUCSU and JUCSU, this incident at Chittagong University may not be very big; but it indicates that even a major uprising has failed to bring any major change in the electoral culture of the country and the mindset of university administrations.

Yet the chief adviser’s press secretary Shafiqul Alam has said, about what the national election might be like, ‘the DUCSU election was a major test, and in this test the political parties, civil society and students have passed well.’ On Thursday at an event at the Cirdap auditorium in the capital, he said the national election would be in February. The reality is, if DUCSU and JUCSU were truly test cases for the national election, and if the coming election is also under this government, then what it will be like and what will happen there can be easily guessed.

It may be noted that the three parliaments from the ninth national election of 2008, along with several local government elections, were all controversial and criticised. Most were one-sided. Winning without contest had become an electoral disease. In national or local elections, once nominated by the ruling party, candidates would hold victory rallies. Because nomination by the ruling party meant certain victory. In other words, people had almost forgotten the idea of real competition or a tough fight in elections.

In this reality, student union elections at universities, after a long time, had raised new enthusiasm among people because they hoped to see a good election. Through free, fair, acceptable and credible elections, the country would take another step forward on the path of democratic transition. But in the very universities where the brightest study, from where the country’s best scientists, architects, teachers and doctors graduate, if there is no reform—if they continue as before, if even these institutions’ elections cannot be kept free of controversy—then what meaning does the sacrifice of so many lives in the July uprising carry?

Amin Al Rashid: Journalist and writer.