Political reforms: Which way?
Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar
The next parliamentary election is less than two years away. However, election winds appear to be hitting our sail already. Our Honourable Prime Minister, in her recent public meetings, has begun to ask for votes. Other political parties seem to be warming up for it. Newspapers have also started to highlight election related issues. For example, The Daily Star has recently focused its entire anniversary supplement on electoral issues.Elections are important in that they help choose leaders in a methodical and orderly way -- as opposed to through chaotic or violent competitions. Elections are in essence filters for picking the good and discarding the bad. If elections fail to differentiate between the honest and the dishonest, the competent and the incompetent, and those committed to people's welfare and those committed to self-interest, they carry little meaning and significance. In fact, such elections can cause more harm than good. Bangladesh's experiences of the past decade provide ample evidence of how elections can generate undesirable consequences. During our so-called democratic experiment, the income disparity has greatly widened and the common people have increasingly been deprived while the rich have gotten richer and received more and more privileges. We became singled out as the filthiest nation in the world four times in a row. Our political process has become totally criminalised. Toll collection, hooliganism, violence, political killing, flaunting of black money, land grabbing, trampling of citizens' rights have now become all-pervasive in our country. These evil consequences are the results of our inability to elect honest, competent and committed individuals to high offices. We have been seduced by our leaders to vote for party symbols, rather than quality candidates or party programmes, and we are now reaping the bitter harvest. We have been asked to elect "lamp posts;" we complied and have gotten what we deserved. Our political bosses have convinced us to believe that elections and democracy are synonymous -- in order to institutionalise democracy we just need to hold periodic elections. Thus, we have been practicing "one-day -- election-day -- democracy" in our country. However, an election-only democracy usually degenerates into "leaseocracy" setting in motion a tendency toward kleptomania. Uncontrolled looting and plundering then follow. Our democracy has in essence given the elected leaders and through a patronage system -- their cronies the licence to steal with impunity. This obviously creates an incentive for an all out competition among political parties to attain power at any cost. They thus employ all conceivable means to get elected -- they resort to violence, use black money, occupy polling booths and attempt to manipulate the polling process. These actions clearly thwart the democratic process. Democracy is a system of government in which people govern themselves, either directly or through their elected representatives. Democracy is not just about elections. Elections are mere procedures -- democratic procedures. However, democratic procedures, such as free and fair elections, are distinctly different from democratic principles, such as self-government and good governance. Democratic procedures are useful to the extent that they promote democratic principles. Thus, elections are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for a democratic system. In fact, the election-only democracy, as our experience shows, can really create "Frankensteins," which can irreparably ruin the future of their creators. It is clear that the criminalisation of our election-centred politics, engendered by the influence of black money and muscle, now poses the biggest challenge to our nascent democracy. In order to overcome this problem, we need institutional as well as systemic reforms and changes. For such reforms we specifically propose, among other things, to: (a) make the Election Commission truly independent and transparent; (b) provide for registration/deregistration of political parties; (c) ensure the accuracy of electoral rolls; (d) outlaw exorbitant election expenses and make its accounting transparent; (e) expedite the disposal of election disputes; and (f) empower voters with information regarding the antecedents of candidates running for office. The independence of the Election Commission may be assured by treating all its expenditures as charged,Êallowing it to have an independent secretariat, nominating honest, competent and courageous individuals to the EC, providing them with the necessary constitutional protection, and vesting in the EC the rule-making authority for election related laws. The activities of the EC must also be made transparent to avoid allegations of wrongdoing. The issue of nominating good, honest and competent people to the EC is particularly relevant at this time in that the terms of the CEC and one other EC member will expire in a few months. The terms of other members will also expire before the next general election. Registration of political parties with the EC is a contentious issue in that our major political parties are not in favour of it. Thoughtful observers are, however, insistent on it. Requirements for registration of political parties would include democratisation of their party hierarchies, transparency in their raising and spending of funds, their membership receiving a voice in the nomination process, and restrictions on the nomination of certain types of candidates to ensure a level playing field. Arguments against registration of political parties lack justification in that all formal endeavours, including the setting up of a business, require registration with some authority. In neighbouring India, for example, it is mandatory by law for political parties to register with the EC. Maintaining the accuracy of electoral rolls would require an easing of the registration process, continuous updating of the electoral rolls, providing for an appellate authority, and the issuance of voter IDs. To eliminate the influence of black money in elections and in the political process, candidates must submit accurate reports of their election expenses and those reports must be available for public scrutiny. They must also periodically submit statements of personal income, assets and liabilities and financial statements of members of their immediate families. These reports and statements must be audited by competent experts and appropriate actions must be taken for submitting false and misleading information. Loopholes allowing loan defaulters to run in elections must also be eliminated. It may be pointed out under section 44 of the Representation of People Order 1972, candidates running for parliament are now required to file forms 17A, B and C to account for: (a) the probable amount and the sources of their election expenses; (b) the amount and types of their assets, nature of their liabilities, and their amount of annual income and expenditures; and (c) their actual election expense details, including listings of payments, unpaid claims, amounts received in various forms by election agents. According to available information, of the 1939 total candidates contesting the 8th parliamentary elections, 1587 filed form 17A and B, and 1473 filed form 17C. Thus, all candidates in the 2001 parliamentary elections did not even comply with the reporting requirements under the existing statutes. Yet cases were reported to have been filed against only 40 defaulters, and nothing was done against the rest although the law clearly provides for specific penalties. Without swift and severe retribution for violations of law and codes of conduct, violations are usually encouraged. The resolution of election related disputes is generally so much time consuming that justice is not often carried out, and justice delayed is justice denied. Thus expeditious and timely resolution of election disputes must be ensured to make the election process fair. Even when we buy a bottle of water, the bottler is required to provide 'accurate' information regarding the ingredients of its product so that buyers can make informed decisions. The bottler may be prosecuted for providing misleading information. However, citizens do not have a right to know anything about the background and antecedents of candidates running for office to help make an informed choice. The decision about buying a bottle of water is a trivial one, while effects of voter selection of leaders can hardly be over-estimated. In order to remedy this void, individuals contesting elections must be required to submit affidavits with their nomination papers disclosing their criminal records, their own and their immediate family members' income, sources of income, assets and liabilities. Those affidavits must be posted on the EC website, as is done in India. The affidavits must be scrutinised and those filing false and misleading affidavits must loose their seats if elected. Candidates with criminal background and records of corrupt practices must also be made ineligible to run for office. Disclosures of information relating to financial and criminal backgrounds are very important in that democracy is as sound as the people running for and holding offices. However, the people are as good as their backgrounds. Only good and honest people are likely to make sincere and conscientious efforts to play the political games according to the rules and make the system work. Dishonest politicians are not only apt to break the rules and undermine the system, they are also likely to try to change the rules in the middle of the game, if the game does not go their way. With honest politicians and an independent Election Commission, we will not even need the caretaker system. To conclude, in order to remedy the harms already caused by our system of election-only democracy, we need some deep and far-reaching political reforms. We need to clean up the procedures to make the elections free and open as well as embrace the core democratic principles to make the system work for the benefit of the people. We also need to elect honest and competent people to run the affairs of the nation. Only then can we expect to have a truly democratic system of government. A truly democratic system is attractive in that it can foster good and people-oriented governance. We have put forward these proposals in order to foment a serious dialogue on and develop an agenda for political reforms in Bangladesh. Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar is Global Vice President and Country Director, The Hunger Project-Bangladesh and Member-Secretary, SHUJAN
|
|