Politics destroying all our institutions
HABITS die hard, and bad habits die even harder, if at all. Our self-destructive habit of blurring the vital differences between institutions of state and government and that of the ruling party is not only not dying but growing dangerously and destroying most of our cherished public institutions. The compulsion has become so strong that today it is almost impossible to be a government servant or hold any publicly funded job without establishing one's pedigree as a ruling party supporter.
Two recent incidents may suffice to prove our contention.
Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, while addressing the 34th national rally of Ansar and Village Defence Party (VDP) asked them to “resist BNP and Jamaat-Shibir and their cohorts as they were responsible for militancy, terrorism and communalism,” and urged them to "stay alert so that anti-democratic communal forces and the BNP-Jamaat-Shibir could no longer destabilise the country.”
Can there be any question that she is asking Ansars and VDP members, who are public servants in the general sense of the term, to work against two specific political parties -- in this case BNP and Jamaat -- that are legal entities and have not been banned? One can accept it if she asks them to work against Huji, JMB or others who are now banned. But how can she call upon “public servants” to work against BNP? If there are individuals within these two parties who have broken the law then let them be prosecuted. But under no circumstances can she ask Ansars, who are part of the “disciplined forces” like army, navy, air force, etc, to work against an established political party. (See Article 152 of the Constitution and Ansar Act of 1995.)
As the head of government it is her duty to bring to justice any individual, group, or even a political party indulging in terrorism, militancy, communalism and destabilising the country in other ways. Purpose-built law enforcement and intelligence bodies exist just for such ends. Here also the law obliges that specific charges be brought and alleged persons or organisations be charged and prosecuted as per law.
Anything other than this process is “politicking” and Ansars and VDP members, who are part of an auxiliary force and paid for from the public exchequer, cannot and must not be subjected to such partisan politics. There are too many examples from too many parts of the world where “politicisation” of “disciplined forces” has led to the emergence of “rogue” groups who, taking the law in their own hands, have caused mayhem against political opponents to please the rulers of the day.
The second example is from last Tuesday. On that day Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), the pro-ruling AL students body, activists drove out 97 students (see our editorial of Thursday) from Salimullah Muslim Hall (a student dormitory), once again blurring the distinction between what is public and what is party's. The ruling party students' body thought it quite proper to throw out these genuine students of Dhaka University from their dorms because they did not have AL or BCL connections; in other words they did not belong to their party, hence these students could not stay in the Hall. The story goes that BCL leaders asked students to provide “proof” that they belong to BCL if they wanted to stay in the hall.
BCL can very easily run its own private students' dormitory elsewhere in the city and make it obligatory for its residents to belong to its party. But Salimullah Muslim Hall is public property, belonging to Dhaka University that runs by taxpayers' money and under some laws and bylaws, and must be governed according to the laws of the land, and not that of the BCL.
“Hall dakhal” (forcible occupying of halls) by the ruling party student cadres has been there for sometime. As all aberrations, it started as an exception and has now become the norm. As the AL-BNP rivalry became deeper and sharper, DU Halls 'capture' became a serious affair as providing space to stay became a sure way of ensuring the growth of party cadres.
If BCL action is condemnable, the reaction of the University and hall authorities is simply unbelievable. In response to our question they told this newspaper (see report published on Wednesday, back page) that University regulation does not permit first year students to get seats in the Halls. This, they said, is organised by the BCL and therefore the Hall authority has nothing to do. If first year students are not entitled to stay in the dorms then it is the DU authorities who should throw them out and not the BCL. Why should the student wing of the ruling party at all come into the picture, and why, for God's sake, should the Hall and DU authorities play second fiddle to them is something we fail to understand, unless of course the DU authorities have handed over to the 'party' what should have belonged to the general students, meaning the 'public.'
The above two examples serve to demonstrate how, with each successive tenure of BNP and AL, partisanship entered the public domain and the distinction between the “public” and the “ruling party” disappeared. I recall the prime minister telling this writer during her first term in office (1996-2001) that police and bureaucracy have been filled up by partisan cadres of BNP. “I have to clean the stable.” Well, how much she “cleaned” and how much worse she made the “stable” is a matter of research, but what is clear is that the process never stopped. BNP, in its second tenure, this time with Jamaat in tow, further injected partisan people into the public service. The most striking proof of this process is the high number of Officers on Special Duty (OSD) we saw in each of AL and BNP tenures. In 2009, when the AL government took over from the caretaker government of Fakhruddin Ahmed, the OSD figure was 250. In December 2013 the total was 650.
Our political leadership on both sides of the aisle must seriously ponder the consequences of rising partisanship in dealing with public servants. The situation has reached such a pass that it is now almost a negative qualification if a public servant is thought to be neutral. “How can you be neutral between good and bad?” is often the unasked question by the ruling party.
A sure victim of “partisan” bureaucracy is efficiency. Given human nature, the more knowledgeable and efficient ones work silently and on their own. It is the inefficient ones that team up in groups of 'mutual' promoters and make most of the noise. They compete to show 'loyalty' and hide their worthlessness by badmouthing others, especially pointing out how 'loyally' the 'others' had served the previous regime. If the 'political masters' show preference for the so-called 'loyalty' instead of efficiency and start depending more and more on them then the whole governance process dwindles into mere 'paper pushing' and becomes riddled with bribery and corruption.
Of course the pat answer for the above criticism will be that the previous government did the same, if not worse. Every time we complain about corruption, nepotism or irregularities the answer is the same, “the previous government was worse.” This we have been hearing for the last 23 years, and each time the problem got worse and our bureaucracy less efficient and our public service more and more corrupt.
There was a time when the demarcations between what is the party's and what is the government's was clear and made sacrosanct. Regrettably, it has been long lost to our great cost.
When the distinction between public servants and party workers is lost some very serious consequences occur. First, the differences between public wealth and party fund are lost. Thus fund from public exchequer begins to find its way to party activities, which starts by misusing public facilities for party work and ends by directly diverting public resources or development funds for party activities. It is in a blurring of this distinction that the root of corruption lies. When that occurs we have the beginnings of the erosion of the governance process.
It is nothing more than a mere illusion to think that Sheikh Hasina's government can provide good governance or even a semblance of it with a partisan public service. She will have to remember that those who shout the most about how devoted she or he is to her, the more likely it is that the person concerned is using his or her position for personal gains and thereby jeopardising the possibility of the PM's success.
Isn't it time that we stop using the excuse that “it was worse before” and start setting new standards for ourselves.
The writer is Editor and Publisher, The Daily Star.
Comments