The Problems with the Constitution of Bangladesh

Sukhamaya Bain, Ph.D.

Published on January 13, 2007

 

The nation of Bangladesh is passing through a political turmoil. President Iajuddin Ahmed has just declared a state of emergency for the country, curtailing many fundamental rights of the citizens. The reason is that the country does not have a political atmosphere that is conducive of an election that is worth monitoring by neutral international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU).

During the last few weeks, Mr. Ahmed was determined to hold a due parliamentary election on January 22, 2007. His principal argument was that the constitution requires holding the election within ninety days of the dissolution of the parliament. Indeed, after the tenure of the last government was over, and the consequent dissolution of the last parliament, the country had to have a parliamentary election by about January 22, 2007, in order to operate by the constitution.

However, there was credible evidence that the country did not have an administration that was willing and capable of holding a free and fair election. The voter list was evidently also corrupted by omissions of legitimate voters, and inclusions of fake voters. Under the circumstances, the coalition of political forces that was not in power in the last government decided to boycott the election.

Sensing a farcical election on January 22, 2007, the UN and the EU recently decided to withdraw their election observers from the country. This clearly brought some sense into President Ahmed�s mind. He realized that the election that he was insisting upon would not be acceptable to the world.

While making the decision to declare a state of emergency and a postponement of the election, Mr. Ahmed has made quite a few admissions. He admitted that the voter list was flawed. He admitted that holding a free and fair election was not possible in the constitution stipulated ninety days. He admitted realizing that an election without the participation of all major political forces of the country would not be credible.

The admission by Mr. Ahmed, at least for the present case, that holding a free and fair election was not possible in the constitution stipulated ninety days, Mr. Ahmed clearly acknowledged a flaw in the constitution of Bangladesh.

This is by no means the only problem of the constitution of Bangladesh. To put it mildly, the constitution of Bangladesh in the current form is a poor quality document for a nation.

Let me just ignore for now the hatred and discrimination that the constitution has against the non-Muslims of the land, and talk about the electoral process.

The President is selected by the parliament. This is bound to be a largely partisan choice, a choice of the parliamentary majority party at the time. When the tenure of that partisan parliament is over, the President still remains in the office. He selects the so called Chief Advisor (CA), who would head a team of advisors. By definition, the CA and the other advisors are advisors to the President. They are responsible for running the country during the constitution stipulated ninety days of electoral time.

The advisors are to run the country in the capacity of ministers. Are they responsible for administering the election? No. That is the responsibility of the Election Commission.

And who are the election commissioners? They are appointed by the President during his whole tenure, including when the partisan parliament that selected him was in power. The tenure of the election commissioners are for five years, the same as those of the parliament and the President. Thus, the people that are to administer the election could be selected by just one President, the one that the last partisan parliament had selected.

In a corrupt country like Bangladesh, how could this arrangement provide free and fair elections? Isn�t this a recipe for omissions of legitimate voters, and inclusions of fake voters in the voter lists?