Apples and oranges
IT has been a long two years, but the finish line finally appears to be in sight. However, between now and December 18, when the elections are scheduled to take place, there is still much that can go wrong, and so it would be premature to conclude that elections, even if they do seem increasingly likely, are a certainty.
The AL appears to be in good condition for the upcoming polls, with its nominees reportedly finalised and little intra-party bickering. Every once in a while it voices a pro forma complaint against the unpopular caretaker government, but in all significant respects it seems as though it is pretty much on board for the elections.
Even if it has certain reservations about the coming elections and the intentions of the authorities, the AL seems persuaded that these elections will be far fairer than the abortive elections that were scheduled to be held on January 22, 2007.
Indeed, few impartial observers would argue with that assessment. The voter roll is the most accurate this country has ever seen, with almost 13 million false names that were on the previous list having been struck off. In addition, the current EC seems far more capable and impartial than its universally reviled predecessor.
The city council elections that were held in August were not beyond question, but, by and large, seemed above board, with only one significant allegation of (ultimately unsuccessful) vote rigging. Certainly, in comparison to city council elections of the past, they appeared to be a model of probity.
The principal stumbling block to the holding of elections on December 18 thus now comes from the BNP and its alliance partners.
The BNP-led four-party alliance remains thoroughly distrustful of the current government, and has openly accused both the government and the EC of plotting against it.
It has laid out a list of seven demands that it insists be met before it will agree to take part in the elections, but a number of these demands, such as the repeal of both the recently passed amendment to the election law and the new constituency delimitation, seem clearly to have been in made in bad faith with an eye to finding excuses to refuse to participate.
Thus, even at this late stage in the game, it remains unclear whether the BNP-led four-party alliance will take part in the elections or not. Critics charge that the alliance, which is in poor shape in terms of the nomination and pre-election organisational process, fears that it is headed for defeat and this is why it is dragging its feet.
This leaves Bangladesh in a quandary. The big question is: Can elections without one major party (or alliance) be considered legitimate?
The argument against the eventually aborted January 22, 2007 polls was that elections without the AL-led Grand Alliance could not be considered legitimate. Could not the same argument be made for the upcoming polls, but with the shoe on the BNP foot?
Perhaps. However, it bears mentioning that the two situations are not quite analogous. Both the head of the caretaker government and the EC last time were BNP appointees and staunch BNP loyalists (indeed the then chief election commissioner has reportedly been vying for a BNP ticket this time around).
The other election commissioners were also all four-party alliance men, and, in fact, the entire EC was staffed from top to bottom with four-party loyalists.
Add in the fact that the voter list contained a whopping 13 million false names, and it is not hard to see why the claims of the AL and its alliance partners that the fix was in were given credence by impartial observers.
The same cannot persuasively be said today. Neither the head of the caretaker government nor the head of the EC nor the army chief can be considered AL men by any stretch of the imagination, and none were placed in their positions by the AL.
Similarly, the personnel who will be overseeing the elections can by no means be said to be AL people. Finally, it is acknowledged by all that the current voter list is the most complete and error-free the country has ever seen.
The BNP and its partners argue that in their dealings with the EC it is clear that the EC has it in for them. However, even if one is to accept this claim at face value (and they have never explicated or itemised their grievances) this is hardly the same as the AL's claims two years ago.
Nor is there any evidence that the EC (or anyone else for that matter) is out to rig the elections or that anyone has any ability to do so, even if they wished to.
The counter-argument to the BNP is that if a party has veto power over elections just because it thinks that it might lose, then the election process might be dragged out indefinitely and we will never have elections. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.
For this reason, it seems as though even if the BNP-led four-party alliance were to sit out the elections, that the elections might still be considered legitimate in the eyes of the general public.
If the BNP does not take part, the inclusion of the JP and the BDB-Gono Forum alliance could easily bump turn-out to as much as 70 per cent, which would further nullify complaints of illegitimacy. It thus seems that the threat of boycotting the polls might not have the sting that it once did.
The big question is, if the BNP and JI decide to boycott the elections and take to the streets, what kind of trouble they can create, and whether the government and the army have the stomach to maintain law and order in the face of potentially violent protests. The way things are going, they may have no choice.
However, this is something that no one wishes to see, and the better solution for all concerned would surely be if the BNP actually did take part in the elections.
However, weakened they are, they could surely expect to win a significant number of seats, and there is a good chance that no one would end up with an absolute majority which would ensure them a share of the government. The party may well even pull out an upset victory like in 1991.
Of course, the bigger questions come after the elections: Will anyone have an absolute majority? If they do not, what permutations will there be in the new government? What role will the army play post-elections? What concessions will the elected government make to the army? Will the political parties work together to effectuate a functional democracy? To say nothing of how will we deal with all our looming economic problems amidst the global down-turn.
But these are all questions for the future. The first question is whether and how we get to elections in the first place. Only then can the long, painful process of rebuilding begin, and all the other serious issues be addressed.
Comments