The recent image of a Jubo League leader carrying a ballot unit panel of an electronic voting machine (EVM) after snatching it during a by-poll in Chattogram's Boalkhali upazila is the latest addition to a growing list of examples as to why EVMs may not be suitable for conducting a free and fair election in Bangladesh. Neither the assistant presiding officer nor the on-duty members of the law enforcement agencies were able to prevent the mighty Jubo League's union level leader Nirmalendu Dey Sumon from taking the EVM ballot unit panel away.

They were unable to recover it either; Awami League's union President Ratan Chowdhury recovered the panel and returned it to the polling centre.

This incident occurred only a few days after Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kazi Habibul Awal said no one had yet made a sound and objective complaint about the use of EVMs, and the commission had taken a stand in favour of EVMs after conducting several tests. Would the CEC now, at the least, agree that his several tests didn't include robbing of ballot-equivalent parts of their very expensive toy? Clearly he has been oblivious to the arguments made by most of the political parties, except the ruling Awami League and its allies. There's even stronger opposition to the idea of using EVMs among the citizenry and civil society organisations. Have the polling officers not blamed these machines' inefficiency for slowing down the voting process, which left many voters frustrated and contributed to lower turnout?

Read more

Two by-polls, 29 years apart – yet so similar?

While speaking at a workshop in Cox's Bazar on March 11, the CEC, perhaps unwittingly, revealed the Election Commission's obsession with EVMs when he said, "The Election Commission is always in favour of conducting elections using EVMs. We are also working to find innovative modern technology for future elections." His comment that "so far, there has been no objective complaint about rigged elections using EVMs" suggests that he has conveniently forgotten that these EVMs do not have any option for verifying voting records, owing to a design fault of not including the voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) system.

Even though it has abandoned the ambitious plan to hold 50 percent of the next parliamentary election through EVMs due to the country's ongoing financial crisis, the EC still appears to be aiming at using EVMs in quite a significant number of parliamentary seats. On March 15, the commission decided to ask the finance ministry for allocating Tk 1,260 crore (equivalent to more than $1 billion) for repairing 110,000 EVMs. This means each EVM unit will cost Tk 115,000, which is nearly half the purchase price.

It was reported in this daily that each EVM was bought for Tk 235,000, a price 11 times costlier than neighbouring India. When better EVMs (including VVPAT) cost much less, then why does the EC want to repair discredited junk?

Earlier, it was reported in the media that about 40,000 EVMs were beyond repair. When these EVMs were introduced, the EC bought 150,000 EVMs, which means there's none, or very few, usable EVMs available now. Even then, the commission is insistent on having some EVMs in the upcoming parliamentary election.

According to Election Commissioner Anisur Rahman, the Election Commission just wants a pledge that its request would be approved. He told the media, "If we are assured of the required funds, we will go for the work immediately. We can even make half payment to the Machine Tools Factory in this fiscal year and the rest in the next fiscal year." This shows the EC's resolve to go the extra mile to have as many EVMs being used in the next election as possible.

It was reported in this daily that each EVM was bought for Tk 235,000, a price 11 times costlier than neighbouring India. When better EVMs (including VVPAT) cost much less, then why does the EC want to repair discredited junks?

Such an extraordinary emphasis on having elections in some constituencies make us wonder whether there's more to this than meets the eye. It may sound cynical, but questions can be raised whether the intention is to allow the workers of the ruling party to cover their unlawful act of pressing voting buttons for their candidates in the name of assisting the voters. Besides, allowing election officials up to one percent of the voters in a polling booth to cast votes through EVMs in the event of fingerprint mismatch also increases risks of manipulation.

The amount of money that the Election Commission is seeking to repair faulty EVMs is almost double the money allocated for the last parliamentary election – which was also a record in our electoral history. Available data shows that the allocation for the last national assembly election was Tk 700 crore, when the voter number was 104 million. The EC's original plan was to have voting in 150 constituencies through EVMs, and for that it sought Tk 8,711 crore, which would have cost us 14 times more than the previous election. In a way, the ongoing economic predicament has saved us from an exorbitant waste.

Read more

Political dialogues: The long road to nowhere

Under these circumstances, it would be sensible to abandon such a wasteful wish, and concentrate on other crucial preparatory work for the coming election instead. CEC Habibul Awal, in his public statements, has acknowledged that there is a crisis. The reason for the crisis is evident in his words, "We still do not see a consensus among parties regarding the upcoming general election, which is essential. We do not want any political crisis before or during the elections."

It's well understood that the CEC doesn't want to take the role of a mediator, but getting an agreement from the contending parties on the rules of the game beforehand is not someone else's responsibility. 

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His Twitter handle is @ahmedka1

That a day would come when the Election Commission would do anything beyond perfunctory efforts to stop electoral irregularities was unthinkable even a few days ago. But the unthinkable has happened. The suspension of the Gaibandha-5 by-poll, after voting was stopped in 50 out of 145 centres amid widespread irregularities and a mass boycott by all but one candidate, is an extraordinary move, an exercise of the highest power granted to the EC. We welcome the EC for showing such courage – a rarity for bureaucrats-turned-commissioners – which is perhaps the only silver lining to an otherwise botched operation. But courage alone will not be enough to ensure fair elections, nor can it make up for the EC's – and by extension, the administration's – inability to control the Gaibandha situation.   

Read more

Situation went ‘out of control’

The suspension decision has, justifiably, stunned both political parties and election observers, who noted its unprecedented nature in the recent history of parliamentary elections. But too much focus on the merits of the decision risks taking away from the fact that serious irregularities did occur, in the presence of election and law enforcement officials no less. The EC cited irregularities including illegal presence of individuals in polling booths, voters being forced to vote for a certain candidate, criminals cutting the cables of CCTV cameras, etc. The situation was "out of control", it said. Some candidates also alleged that their agents were forced out of the centres. An independent candidate even said that Awami League men didn't allow him to cast his own vote.

Read more

Is Gaibandha-5 by-poll a prelude to the main show?

So, while it's true that the EC took a drastic decision in its first brush with parliamentary elections, it is also true that it did so in the face of tremendous odds. If this is a sign of things to come, we have every reason to worry about the upcoming national election. Right now, the challenge for the EC is to get the Gaibandha-5 by-poll back on track. But it also has to investigate all reported irregularities and the potential complicity of election officials, and punish those responsible. Otherwise, all this will amount to nothing but a token concession to disgruntled opposition parties.

Read more

‘I must thank the Election Commission’

Until Wednesday, the EC largely appeared to be appeasing the ruling party in election-related decisions. It allowed the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) in the upcoming national election, despite protests from most political parties. It refused to punish high-profile violators of electoral codes. It failed to send a strong message to field-level administrators – deputy commissioners (DCs) and superintendents of police (SPs) – after their grievous misconduct in a recent conference. As well as setting examples of neutrality and transparency in all its actions and preventing any collusion among election officials and the ruling party, the EC also has to figure out a way to secure unconditional support from the administration.

This is a tall order indeed, and we remain unconvinced that the EC can navigate all these challenges and hold fair elections on its own. This is why the support of all stakeholders, especially the ruling party and the administration, is vital. The public has grown tired of watching violent and non-participatory elections year after year. The authorities must find a way to avoid that in the future.

It is heartening to see that the media has been preparing statements based on the information in affidavits submitted by the candidates who are running for parliament. This requirement of submitting affidavits came from a ruling by the high court bench led by Justice Abdul Matin in 2005. The judgement required the candidates running for parliament to submit eight kinds of information with their nomination papers. These include their educational qualifications, criminal records, and assets, income and liabilities of both themselves and their dependents.

The court also directed the Election Commission to disseminate this information so that the people could use it to make informed decisions in casting their votes. The EC, however, failed to disseminate that information. We, on behalf of SHUJAN, have been disseminating this information through the media by preparing comparative statements for each constituency. We also thwarted the sinister efforts by an imposter named Abu Safa who, using false information, tried to overturn the high court judgement.

This idea of disclosure of information about the candidates in the form of affidavits has a history. In 2002, in Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms [2002 (3) SCC], the Indian supreme court gave a seminal judgement in which it stated that the right to know about public officials is derived from the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.

Read more

Of the AL, for the AL, and by the AL

In a second case, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India [2003 (4) SCC], the Supreme Court of India further emphasised the importance of disclosure of antecedents. Using this information, the court opined, the voters could decide whether they would vote for A or B. The court further said that if you don't want to turn democracy into a farce, you have to give the voters this right to have information about the background of the candidates. Bangladesh's judgement of 2005 followed these seminal judgments of the Indian supreme court.

There have been numerous efforts in our country to thwart this judgement. For example, in 2013 there were four city corporation elections: Barisal, Khulna, Rajshahi, and Sylhet. In the previous election, held in 2007, the Awami League mayoral candidates won and the BNP candidates lost. The same candidates ran again in 2013. We compared the affidavits submitted by the same candidates in both elections to see what happened to their income and wealth. What we found was that the income and wealth of the incumbent mayors, who were elected in 2007, skyrocketed. And the wealth and income of those who didn't win in 2007 either remained the same or declined. Thus, it became clear that getting elected was like getting an Aladdin's lamp in one's hands. In other words, anyone occupying an elected office is able to mint money and get rich. We held a press conference to disseminate our findings. In response, Awami League sent a letter to the EC saying that we had defamed them using concocted information. This allegation was totally false as we used the information disclosed by candidates in their affidavits sworn before a magistrate. It should be noted that including false information in an affidavit, sworn before a magistrate, is a criminal offence under section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Yet, we were accused of using misinformation with the intention of defaming the candidates.

The biggest attack came from Sayed Ashraful Islam, the general secretary of Awami League. In 2014, according to a Prothom Alo report, he said that the affidavits have become the tools of character assassination of politicians. Clearly, these were efforts to do away with the requirement of disclosing antecedents by candidates in the form of affidavits. But they forgot one extremely important detail. The demand for disclosures came from the Awami League itself. On July 15, 2005, Sheikh Hasina, the then leader of the opposition, said in a press conference that the candidates must submit her/his own and their dependants' wealth information with their nomination papers. Additionally, they would have to declare if they have any personal stake in any economic activities of the government. She also demanded that those who lied or provided misinformation in their affidavit face strict legal consequences. However, this was not the only instance when Awami League reiterated the importance of disclosure of antecedents of powerful individuals including MPs.

Read more

Politicians’ wealth surge and why nations fail

Before the 2008 parliamentary election, Awami League published its famous election manifesto, Dinbodoler Sanad (Charter for Change), in which it promised to regularly disclose the wealth statements of all powerful people in the government. But unfortunately, the ruling party and the government didn't keep their commitment.

The EC has also not been verifying the information submitted by the candidates. There are widespread allegations of concealing or providing concocted information in the affidavits. A recent newspaper report indicates that at least nine of the ministers didn't declare their dependents' wealth in their affidavits. Notwithstanding the hiding of information, the skyrocketing of income and wealth shown in the affidavits of candidates who are running for the upcoming election reflect an obscene display of riches when many citizens are struggling to make ends meet.

One prime example of a candidate hiding information is Barrister Shahjahan Omar, who went to jail as a senior leader of BNP, then got bail to join Awami League and run for the upcoming election with the boat symbol. He appears to have hidden information about his wealth. More seriously, he did not disclose information about the cases under which he was arrested and bailed. For such non-disclosure, his nomination paper should be declared invalid under section 12(3)(b) of The Representation of the People Order, 1972. However, both the returning officer and the EC cleared Barrister Omar's nomination, allowing him to contest in the election to be held on January 7. Here didn't both the returning officer and the EC violate the law in validating Barrister Omar's nomination paper?

Read more

The facade of a competitive election

In the last few decades, a lot of people have become very rich in our country, mostly through illegal means. They are now trying to "buy" political power by becoming MPs using their ill-gotten money. As a result, over two-thirds of our MPs are now businessmen who have been trying to further their interests using government power. Many of them also hide information in their affidavits. Entry of many of these self-interested individuals to our electoral arena could be blocked if the EC would take the requirement of the submission of affidavits seriously and thoroughly scrutinise them. Unfortunately, despite our repeated efforts, we have not been able to convince the EC to scrutinise the affidavits and disqualify those who hide or submit false information in their affidavits. If the commission lacks capacity to scrutinise the affidavits, they can use the help of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the National Bureau of Revenue for this purpose.

The format for the affidavit developed before the 2008 elections has some serious limitations. We updated the format and shared it with the EC, but received no positive response from the commission. We hope the EC will take it seriously and revise the format and apply it vigorously. We urge it to do its part to clean up our electoral arena by turning the halafnama into amalnama for candidates running for office.

Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar is secretary of SHUJAN: Citizens for Good Governance.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.