To be or not to be held, and why?

SHOULD or can the EC postpone January 5 general election?

ARTICLE 119 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that, among other election related functions, “conduct of elections to Parliament shall vest in the Election Commission which shall, in accordance with this Constitution and any other law (b) hold elections of members of Parliament.”
Article 118 (4) of the Constitution stipulates: “The Election Commission shall be independent in the exercise of its functions and subject only to this Constitution and any other law.”
Clause 11 (1) of the Representation of the People Order (RPO) 1972, which is a corollary of Article 119(1) of the constitution stipulates that “For the purpose of holding elections for constituting Parliament, the Commission shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, call upon the electors to elect a member from each constituency and shall, in relation to each constituency, specify in the notification (a) a day on or before which the nomination of candidates may be filed; (b) a day [or days] for the scrutiny of nomination papers; (c) a day on or before which candidature may be withdrawn; and (d) a day [or days], at least fifteen days after the withdrawal day, for the taking of the poll.”
The above Articles and Clauses give the Election Commission (EC) the authority to announce schedule of election process independently for holding election (a) in the case of a dissolution by reason of the expiration of its term, within the period of ninety days preceding such dissolution, and (b) in the case of a dissolution otherwise than by reason of such expiration, within ninety days after such dissolution (Article 123 of the Constitution).
With the same authority, the EC can change the schedule within the time limit specified. It is further strengthened by an example in Clause (4) of Article 123 of the Constitution, which reads:  “An election to fill the seat of a member of Parliament which falls vacant otherwise than by reason of the dissolution of Parliament shall be held within ninety days of the occurrence of the vacancy, provided that in a case where, in the opinion of the Chief Election Commissioner, it is not possible, for reasons of an act of God, to hold such election within the period specified in this clause, such election shall be held within ninety days following next after the last day of such period.”
As to the January 5 general election scheduled for the 10th Parliament, questions have been raised about the potential for grave social disturbance and violence that may continue to threaten life and property of the people or the state close to or during the voting. To avoid or avert this danger in the continuing emergency-like situation, EC or even the chief election commissioner may postpone the election up to January 24, 2014, to allow some cooling time.

How rational and democratic is the declaration of majority candidates “Elected Uncontested”?
RPO Clause 19.(1) states: “Where, after scrutiny under Article 14, only one person remains as a validly nominated candidate for election as a member from a constituency or where after withdrawal under Article 16 only one person is left as a contesting candidate, the Returning Officer shall, by public notice, declare such candidate to be elected to the seat.
This provision violates the spirit of the “election to be decided by secret ballot” of Clause 26 of RPO, and “direct election” of Article 65 (2), which are given below:  
Clause 26 of RPO says: “An election under this Order shall be decided by secret ballot and, subject to the provisions of Article 27, every elector shall cast his vote by inserting, in accordance with the provisions of this Order, in the ballot box, a ballot paper in the prescribed form.” Constitution Article 65 (2) stipulates: “Parliament shall consist of three hundred members to be elected in accordance with law from single territorial constituencies by direct election.”
In case of election contested by more than one candidate, the “Retuning Officer declares by public notice containing the name of and the total number of votes received by, each contesting candidate,” but in case of  declaration of a candidate “elected uncontested” without voting, the Retuning Officer or the EC cannot record  the number of voters said to have elected  him. Voting must take place to ascertain the number of electors, and if it is too low, the candidate is liable to even get his deposit forfeited.
If the provision of negative vote, i.e marking of the ballot paper with “none of the above candidates,” would continue, voters' choice could be reflected better.
Can the candidate declared “elected uncontested” legitimately be an elected public representative in a democratic system? Fresh election proceeding should better be undertaken to allow the electors to exercise their voting right..

Is the requirement of signatures of one percent electors for an independent candidate constitutional in a democracy?
Article 66. (1) of the Constitution Clearly stipulates: “A person shall, subject to the provisions of clause (2), be qualified to be elected as, and to be, a member of Parliament if  he is a citizen of Bangladesh and has attained the age of twenty five years.”
Clause (2) is silent about requirement of a list of signatures of particular number of electors of the concerned constituency for candidates. But clause (3a) (a) of Article 12 of RPO 1972 (amended 2008) requires a list of signatures of one percent electors of the concerned  constituency only for an independent candidate (Provided that such list need not to be delivered if the independent candidate has previously been elected in any parliamentary election).
This provision is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the spirit of democracy and equality (Article 27) guaranteed by the Constitution. This provision may be treated as void.

The writer is Chairman, IDS.