Why this apathy?

M. Abdul Latif Mondal

Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:00 PM Last update on: Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:00 PM

CHIEF Election Commissioner (CEC), Dr. ATM Shamsul Huda, was the chief guest at a discussion on "Transparency in political funding: challenges and ways to overcome" organised by Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB) on October 25 at Brac Centre Inn in the city. During the discussion the CEC's attention was drawn to a front-page report in The Daily Star of October 24, which said that 17 MPs including a minister, a state minister and a whip hadn't submitted copies of income-tax returns with their applications for candidacy in the last parliamentary election, ignoring electoral laws.
According to the report, some officials of the Election Commission (EC) said that instead of rejecting those 17 applications for non-compliance with Representation of the People Order (RPO) provision, the concerned returning officers (ROs) allowed them (15 belonging to Awami League and 2 to Jatiya Party) to contest the December 29 polls. The report further said that while examining the statements submitted by another 22 MPs, the EC secretariat found that some of them didn't pay taxes and some didn't give the EC any information on their tax records.
The CEC noted the points and, while delivering his speech as chief guest, said that the EC was least bothered if any MP hadn't pay tax before election and the EC was not trying to scrap membership of any such MP. The EC would talk to these MPs and request them to pay tax as they had been elected MPs.
As for the 17 MPs who hadn't submitted income-tax returns with their applications for contesting parliamentary polls, the CEC said that they had tax certificates tagged with their applications, even if they hadn't furnished copies of the last income-tax return.
About scrutiny of papers/data provided by the candidates, the CEC said that in 300 constituencies, about 4,500 to 5,000 candidates submitted papers, and it was not possible to verify all the data provided by them within 15 to 17 days.
It may be mentioned in this connection that Article 44AA of the RPO, as amended up to 2008, makes it mandatory for every candidate contesting parliamentary polls to submit statements of probable sources of funds for election expenses and also of assets and liabilities, annual income and expenditure, and a copy of the income-tax return last submitted by him, if he is an income-tax assessee, to the concerned returning officer (RO).
The Article further says that a copy of the aforesaid statement and income-tax return shall be sent by the contesting candidate to the EC by registered post at the time of submission of the papers to the RO.
It is learnt that the EC issued a circular in November, 2008 asking the ROs to turn down an application if any required document was missing or if it contained fake information. The circular further asked the ROs to send soft copies of all documents to the EC.
On receipt of the soft copies, the information contained in them was posted on the EC's website before election. The question is, why didn't the non-submission of the copies of income-tax returns by the 17 candidates contesting parliamentary polls come to the notice of the EC?
Why is an election held? According to T.N.Seshan, a former CEC of India, an election is the only thing that produces checks and balances during the administration of democracy. Failure to scrutinise the papers/data furnished by the candidates contesting in the election is the first stumbling-block in holding a free, fair and impartial election, and jeopardises democracy.
The CEC's argument of not being able to scrutinise all the papers/data furnished by the large number of candidates from 300 constituencies due to shortage of time and/or manpower does not appear to be convincing. Further, Article 126 of the constitution has made it mandatory for all executive authorities to assist the EC in the discharge of its functions, and all the governments have always been complying with this constitutional direction.
The EC may say that acceptance or rejection of an application of a candidate seeking election is the responsibility of the ROs. The EC comes into the picture when a candidate files an appeal with the EC against rejection of his nomination paper by the RO. This just reminds us of the former CEC Justice M.A. Aziz's statement that the EC was a post-box. The amended RPO has adequately empowered the EC to take disciplinary actions against registered political parties and candidates, which include, among others, cancellation of registration of a political party and cancellation of a candidate's nomination for violation of certain electoral laws.
The chairman of the TIB trustee board, M. Hafizuddin Khan, who presided over the aforesaid roundtable discussion, said that submission of income-tax returns by the candidates was very important. If an MP didn't earn taxable income and spent millions of taka then there was a possibility that he was hiding information, which is an offence. The MPs might lose their seats if it was proven that they hid information or gave wrong information.
It needs no repetition that money and muscle are still the two most important factors in the elections of Bangladesh. The findings of TIB's recent sample survey highlight the overspending by the candidates in the last parliamentary election. The survey, titled "Tracking National Election Process," in 40 constituencies shows, inter alia, that 88 candidates in the surveyed constituencies spent Tk.4, 420,979 on average during the legal time frame for election campaign. The highest amount spent by a candidate was Tk.28, 100,000. This was the position against the highest expenditure limit of Tk.15 lakh by a candidate in a constituency
In view of what has been stated above, there is no alternative to strict enforcement of electoral laws without discriminating between the ruling party and opposition MPs. Those MPs who hid information or gave wrong information and exceeded the expenditure limit should get their due punishment. There is no reason for the EC to be apathetic.