Streamlining the intelligence agencies

SKEPTICS and concerned citizens may not be fully satisfied with the key institutional reforms started in right earnest by the present caretaker government. The expectations from the new order were high and thus dissatisfaction is not unlikely in an environment of unfulfilled aspirations. However, the present leadership has to be credited for at least initiating the long due reform efforts that may be carried to its desirable end by a truly representative government in the not-too-distant future.
With the above scenario in mind this writer would like to dwell upon the role and function of our intelligence agencies that without doubt are very sensitive organizations; and on account of its very secret nature few would like a free and frank discourse on its modus operandi. Present day security experts are, however, of the considered view that open discussion by competent and concerned persons may in fact rationalise the operations of such organization to the benefit of a democratic polity. One may look at recent events in Pakistan where the military has thought it fit to enlighten all lawmakers about the terror and religious extremism scenario.
One has to remember that intelligence bosses enjoy privileged access to the top political executive, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. The agencies provide direction to police organizations in addition to providing political-analytical inputs to the ruling regimes. The agencies have undertaken strategic exercises during elections, and conduct election forecasts and analyses to oblige the party in power.
It has been our unfortunate experience to witness that far from being confined to the proper intelligence role, over-zealous bosses became almost a confidante of the chief executive, adept at every task entrusted to them. There are events to believe the truly political role of the crucial intelligence organ of our State. The important lesson to be learnt is that politicization or lack of impartiality and objectivity in intelligence reporting can distort the policy process and thus damage the credibility and political legitimacy of the State. Is it not time that we know if our intelligence organs enjoy the benefit of a legal framework and a well-honed charter of duties? The political leadership has to perhaps decide whether they and the country stand to benefit if intelligence agencies are made to function in a political manner.
Facts, admittedly, are disconcerting. Intelligence apparently faltered when father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman with most of his immediate family members and other near relations were murdered in the most gruesome manner. Similarly, intelligence could not prevent the tragic assassination of President Ziaur Rahman, the liberation war hero.
We had the unfortunate experience of witnessing a very sensitive intelligence organization working principally for the whims and caprices of a virtual dictator and using public funds for creating and destabilizing political parties, political horse-trading and shadowing people on personal and flimsy grounds in mid to late eighties. No wonder in such a scenario the professional efficiency was sacrificed and public servants turned into personal servants with the attendant ignominy.
The mission and strategy of our intelligence organizations had not been stable at least insofar as the domestic threat perception is concerned. It invariably changes with the change of a political government. Differing political agenda often tend to cloud the pragmatic understanding of our real national interests.
The broad function of maintaining public order for ensuring internal security is closely associated with the task of collecting and collating intelligence in the interest of the state. In reality, in our situation, the interests of the state often get diluted and mixed up with the interests of the government of the day. The situation is marked by an unfortunate lack of understanding and appreciation of the requirements of the state and the government in a democratic and pluralist society like ours.
The unpleasant truth is that intelligence agencies maintain file and shadow the leaders and workers of pronouncedly constitutional politics-oriented parties belonging to the opposition who are recognized partners in the business of politics. At some point of time when such opposition party comes to power, there is an uneasy relationship between the political masters and the agencies. In such a scenario, professionalism becomes the worst casualty, sense of direction is lost and the organization dips into a lackadaisical environment and interests of the state take a back seat giving greater space to partisan considerations. It needs to be kept in mind that the values of a democratic polity are universal and as such demand unconditional adherence to it.
The national agency is expected to be able to effectively serve national interests if directed appropriately by the political authority. If they (agency) have to remain preoccupied with largely inconsequential partisan matters to the detriment of national interest, then we will not be able to manage the crisis situation, not to speak of forestalling the tragedies of recent times. We have been criticizing the agencies very loudly without, however, appreciating the impediments to the growth of an apolitical professional organization. Time has come when we must have the honesty to call a spade a spade and realize that the governments will change hands but not the state.
In Bangladesh today, we are passing through a sad time when doubts are being expressed publicly about the efficacy and honesty of some vital organs of the state whose functions can neither be arrogated to others nor be privatized. The compounding tragedy is that such criticisms by leaders of our society cannot be summarily dismissed. It would not be prudent to treat a disease by denying its very existence. At the same time we cannot give in to the cynics by agreeing to endure what apparently cannot be cured. We can definitely overcome the impasse by dint of political goodwill and foresight if we admit that the damage caused during the yesteryears have to be repaired and the safety and security of the people will receive unbiased attention. Let us be forewarned that progress in the damage repairing will be slow but if we can muster enough courage to initiate the process and avoid being myopic, our future generations would be the proud citizens of a healthy polity. Our politicians have to take the lead. They have to rise to the occasion.
What may or may not be done to countervail the malevolence of the extremists concerns every right-thinking Bangladeshi but equally, if not more significant, is what kept the state apparatus in a deep slumber while the extremists carried on virtually undisturbed. There is a creeping suspicion that there never was a dispassionate appreciation of the real threat scenario. In other words, there was no effort to pinpoint the threats posed to our democratic polity and by extension to our independent national existence. These questions should bother us because patriotic citizens of the People's Republic of Bangladesh must know that.
Like the responses to other socio-economic issues of our national life, we have been disappointingly reactive in responding to the threats of national security. The whole approach appears to be ad-hoc and on a case to case basis. Somehow, the establishment wishes to assure itself by imagining that a hydra-headed monster has surfaced all on a sudden and will wither soon to the relief of a concerned population.
An intelligence agency should not be the judge of its own operations with regard to the necessity and propriety thereof, nor should it be allowed to operate as the agency or instrument of politicians, or degenerate into an institution for controlling the opponents of party in power, or elements within the party in power with which the high command of the party does not see eye to eye. There must be inbuilt constraints.
Security of the State should not involve:
i. assessing the election prospects of the ruling party;
ii. ascertaining the suitability of the candidates for contesting the elections on behalf of the ruling party;
iii. acting as the super-watchman over the activities of politicians regardless of party identity;
iv. being used as an instrument of political spying either by the government or an individual in the government.
At the heart of the matter, there should be a prescription for a charter of duties for the intelligence organ, putting responsibilities beyond doubt and to indicate what is permitted and what is prohibited.
The purpose for which intelligence has to be collected has to be clearly spelt. The same should not be to sub-serve the interests of a political party or an individual or to blackmail or control the opponents of the political party in power or hostile elements within the establishment.
The legitimate purpose of intelligence should be to anticipate developments that may imperil national interests so as to enable appropriate action with the imperative that any effort to equate national interest with party interest should be guarded against. Once the purpose is known, the chances of non-observance of fairness and objectivity in intelligence collection will be reduced. Constant vigilance against misuse will be needed as intelligence activities are carried on in secrecy.
The catch-all definition of 'national security' should not be used as a cover to hide a multitude of abuses. It should exclude activities that in effect mean denial of human rights and basic freedoms. The vague and antiquated formulations of colonial days relating to intelligence function should be replaced by:
i. clear and firm guidelines on the limits to the organization's authority;
ii. the area of its coverage;
iii. the manner of functioning;
iv. the permissible methods;
v. laying standards for the evaluation of the credibility of its sources of information;
vi. measures for enforcing accountability to the executive and legislature;
vii means of controlling and overseeing the operations.
A detailed and precisely honed charter for the intelligence organ in consonance with the spirit of the constitution needs to be worked out.
Our intelligence organization needs to work under pragmatic political leadership and if properly and professionally steered, it does not threaten our liberties. If we operate by the book, we will be adequately informed of the perils which face us. If we do not know the designs of the so-called extremists, then we could well be isolated and our liberties, too, could be in jeopardy. Therefore, we must be ready to deal with all aspects of the not-very-visible war of the extremists with all its ramifications and fronts, supported by external resources. The last thing we can afford to do now is to put our intelligence in chains. Its protective and informative role is indispensable in time of unique and continuing violence.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist of The Daily Star.