Diplomats, Constitution, and the Foreign Minister

I find it almost unbelievable that a country's foreign minister would rebuke foreign diplomats for proposing a likely seminar on election matters (most likely academic in nature) to be held in December not even knowing, by his own admission, the subject matter of the seminar. The FM said, "I don't know about the 'Tuesday Group' and its terms of reference, and I don't know about the contents of their discussion. I've seen in newspapers that they are planning a seminar here." If such comments were to come from the foreign minister of a country, one may wonder, what country that would be other than Bangladesh.

The Daily Star reported that on July 26, Foreign Minister M Morshed Khan lashed out at a reported move by the 'Tuesday Group' of western diplomats for holding an election seminar in Dhaka and categorically said the Bangladesh constitution cannot be changed following demand of any other country. "Foreign diplomats cannot bargain with a government like trade union. Diplomacy is not a CBA job. No diplomatic norms allow a country to change the constitution of another country," he told reporters when his comments were sought on the group's planned election seminar here, likely in December.

Since the minister said that he is not aware of any 'Tuesday group' and didn't know about the contents of their discussion, how he then complains about foreign diplomats bargaining about constitutional issues and suggests that "Bangladesh constitution cannot be changed" is beyond me. The foreign minister categorically said that constitutional change cannot be demanded by any diplomatic club or any country. "Bangladesh will run in accordance with its own constitution," he said, adding "if any change is required that will be done by the elected representatives in parliament, reflecting the wishes of the people."

One wonders why the foreign minister is referring to all these nonsensical issues of foreign diplomats demanding changes in Bangladesh constitution and caretaker government reforms. It seems like he is under a lot of pressure and he knows everything but does not want to admit what he knows.

If foreign diplomats want to organise a seminar on our country's election matters and are willing to spend their resources doing so -- what's wrong with that? Does Bangladesh constitution forbid foreign diplomats from organising seminars on our constitution, economy, poverty alleviation, cultural matters, etc? How can a group of diplomats of foreign countries change the constitution of another country by simply holding a "get to know" seminar about our election matters and constitution unless the constitution has a provision where it categorically suggests that such seminar outcome be mandated in the constitution with no questions asked? What a display of self deprecation and embarrassment for the people of Bangladesh that their foreign minister is so undiplomatic.

In any other western democracies, it would be welcome by the country concerned that foreign diplomats are interested to discuss their constitution, possibly because those countries are not afraid that the weaknesses and loopholes in their constitution would be discovered. Would the foreign minister rebuke the foreign diplomats if they organised a seminar, say, on Islam and tolerance? Would that seminar outcome alter the verses of our holy book?

What is wrong other people knowing about our constitution, election process, culture, etc? What if even they find weaknesses and loopholes in our constitution and recommend that we study them further for a more perfect constitution. This underscores the lack of our understanding and appreciation of what an open society in a liberal democracy is all about.

There was a similar story written by a former retired diplomat which recently appeared in a local daily. He wrote:

"Western diplomats are commenting about our elections now and then. They have found a fertile ground in Bangladesh to interfere because some of our politicians have gone to them time and again to support their cause. We can never conceive of our ambassadors playing a similar role in other countries. We must not give them an opportunity to act as a third party mediator. We should be able to resolve our own problems as a self-respecting nation. We should be ashamed of calling a foreign diplomat to settle our political differences. It is not their mandate to indulge in our internal feuds."

One needs only to be honest to oneself to see that the reason our diplomats do not show interest in the internal affairs of other countries is because we have nothing to offer to these countries unless they want to learn how politicians, who are elected to lead people to prosperity, exploit their own people through embezzlement and corruption; how to accumulate corrupt money, that is black money, and then get political cover to whiten it. Our government can also provide expertise on how to intimidate and repress journalists, helpless minorities; how to increase religious fervour and fundamentalism in a society by building madrassas everywhere (without thinking about their future employment potential) etc etc. Obviously, these countries are not interested in any of these disdainful activities.

The wealthy democracies of the world directly or through international financial institutions provide us aids, grants, and loans. Most often than not, they come with conditions about good governance, enforcement of rule of law, democratic values, human rights and freedom of the media. To uphold its pride, Bangladesh can certainly refuse to accept all conditional aid packages. We seek foreign expertise in building big bridges, highways, underground mass transit, modernising our railways, building sea ports, power plants, solving the murder of the ex-finance minister, and fighting terrorism -- because they have the expertise.

Aren't these all "mind your own business" internal affairs of our country? So, what's wrong in utilising their experience and expertise in perfecting our democratic institutions and good governance? What's wrong to know what they have to say about our constitution and election process? What are we afraid of? When we look at our current generations of politicians grooming in college and university campuses, we see "all violence and no academics' reminiscent of the days of infamous Monaem Khan and Ayub Khan. There is not much hope for us to see a prosperous and stable democracy in Bangladesh during our life time. Equally dismaying picture flashes before our eyes when we see BNP's alliance with an ultra conservative religious party has been devised simply to hold the grip on power.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics, Eastern Michigan University, and President, Bangladesh Professional and Academic Society of America (BPASA).