Mon 30 Oct 2006
I must say I am quite surprised and impressed by the AL reaction. Their response was very measured. It was following the argument that “we can not agree to the process through which the head of the CTG has been chosen but we are willing to give it a go and see if the President can be impartial.”
This has done a few things for them:
1. Shows AL in a positive light. They seemed politically wise and compromising
2. They were practical and showed that violence is not their only tool
3. Gives them bargaining power to have a strong say in selection of the caretaker advisors, and to extract other compromises. (eg reform of the Election Commission)
4. Has not pushed the AL to the corner viz a viz the Army
I am sure over the next few days we will see AL getting the upper hand in the political process.
The mood in general in Dhaka is that “yes the President has used a very Clintonesque argument in naming himself to the position, but hey, give him a chance to prove himself.” Onus is now on the President to rise to the occasion. The AL (and most of media/ civil society) will no doubt now putting everything the President does under a microscope. And if the choice of the other advisors is correct, then the room for one-sided manoeuvrability on his part is severely curtailed.
I also hope (though do not believe) that the AL shows such maturity when it comes to events leading up to the elections.
October 30th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Yes, it’s about time AL smartened up.
Now only if Hasina could master the art of not talking crap, AL may have a chance this election…
October 30th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Your right on the money here.
A senior BNP man quipped recently that BNP’s secret weapon in the upcoming elections is Sheik Hasina’s mouth!
October 30th, 2006 at 8:34 am
As I have indicated before, I see little reason to hope that either of the two political parties will change their stripes. As long as events break their way, they will be supportive - and if they go the other way, they will call for ‘activism’ which, in Bangladesh, means attacking anything mechanized that moves and setting fire to unprotected sites that someone has taken a fancy to.
I wonder if either party or any of the so called alliances have the guts to declare that ‘civilians’ and ‘civilian property’ are off limits? Go fight each other and kill each other off if you must - but leave the rest of the people alone! Do we dare challenge the parties to pledge that they will NOT attack or damage any public property or prevent any person from going about their daily work? Now that there is no ‘ruling’ party, there is no need to equate BNP with the state so leave the country out of it!
If they really want to fight, why not challenge each other regularly and show up in the brickfields outside of town - bring whatever you’ve got and go at it until either the blood lust or the blood has been thoroughly drained from the thugs and their paymasters. May be KZ and SH should just enter into gladiatorial combat and get it over with!
The reality is that both parties are corrupt through and through - and that neither give a damn about anything but their own crude and selfish interests. Their conflict, like the conflict within BNP (that has now splintered) is an economic one - not one of different philosophies.
We REALLY need an alternative movement!
October 30th, 2006 at 9:07 am
I don’t understand why we are go eager to give one side an upperhand over the other?
Isn’t is true we all should give upperhand to our side, the victim: Our country.
At the end of the days, isn’t it the country, we all should side with?
October 30th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Rumi, we all lean one way or another based on our world views etc.
Even the definition of what the public interest is is subject to different philosophical interpretations from the whole ideological spectrum. Lets not make the political poles, which very crudely express the different world views, invisible. Remember thats what the election is about!
The intellectual, financial and moral corruption sits on top of that layer of these ‘convictions’. It’s these forms of corruption that prevent us from sitting, experimenting and refining policies as they succed and fail to bring the best out our people.
I like the idea of a kz and sh cat fight, without the intermediaries (US), but i don’t think they hold real power, there are forces behind them.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Hi Farhan
I beg to differ with your analysis on AL’s decision and handling of the Iajuddin issue.
I feel this only goes to show how disoriented and unorganized the party has really become.
1. Shows AL in a positive light. They seemed politically wise and compromising
I feel instead it proves once again AL’s lack of short sighted ness. Changing strategy in politics is an art that can be an effective tool if used in an obscure manner. But the way AL did it only goes to show their incompetence in handling the situation. Hasina at the press conference on the afternoon day before the oath taking ceremony rejected Iajuddin as a political puppet. The same person her AL went overboard to reinstall after he was sent abroad for health reasons. I understand the need for her to change stance on Iajudding, but it should have been done with more care.
2. They were practical and showed that violence is not their only tool
On the contrary, I think it only proved once again that, AL believes in violence first and tries to find solutions on the table as & gap manner; ending up agreeing to terms far less than their target, deserting the party supporters who vowed to die for cause set by their leader. Even political novices like this writer knew that BNP and AL will reject each others candidates and Iajudding was going to step in. It is not possible that AL central leaders did not consider this option? Then what good did the violence do? If AL was practical, they would have had a contingency plan. Given our political culture, Iajuddin was inevitable.. I feel it only goes to show that, violence is their only specialization.
3. Gives them bargaining power to have a strong say in selection of the caretaker advisors, and to extract other compromises. (eg reform of the Election Commission)
From past experience, caretaker advisors are always drawn from lists provided by the major parties. This time also, names by JP & BNP have already been given to Iajuddin. AL will give their list in another 24 hrs. The point is, AL,s collegiate decisions in handling this issue will not yield them any upper hand in the formation of the council of advisors. My prediction is that this time around also, the formation will be 4:4:2 for AL, BNP & JP.
4. Has not pushed the AL to the corner viz a viz the Army
Touché, BUT we need to wait until November 3rd to see what strategy AL masters if election commission is not reformed as per their expectation. Emergency may still not be completely out of the question!
Ps. We have met at few parties; of course you as Farhan & I as ……… !! Don’t be surprised if next time I introduce myself as Sufi!
Cheers
October 30th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Muhit
You just said and wrote my feelings and thoughts about the situation. I would say we can arrange the fight in Dhaka Stadium and arrange all the arms.guns and lathi, boitah for them. The NRB can finance the money needed to buy the belonging they need to fight.
Guess what we can do live feed of the fight and have tv channels cover the whole events in a dramatic way with live commentory.Who ever wins rule the country.Just leave the common hardworking working people out of the mess.
Both of this parties are political Bastard of the nation and they only think about themselves and being in power and no one else. I feel sorry for the so called literate NRB in USA and other place who think if AWL will come to power we will be a heaven. Guys if you all think that than as a friend I have to say think again.
Untill and unless the people of the country would rise up to the occasion from their own cosciences nothing will change. All these activitist are given money to create a chaos on the street. Hardly 1% of hard core AWL people are on the street. All the AWL and BNP leaders and their sons and friends are kept safe in Gulshan houses and they let the poor people die on the street.
I wish things could be different. Someday both of these two major parties AWL and BNP would pay a very high price for sure and that days are counting.I hope the lost of Bongobondho and Zia should open up their eyes or rather realize too late when there would be more occurence like this in the future than none of the dynastic blood would be alive to rule Bangladesh in both parties.
I hope and pray some one is listening and help us out of this mess it could be anyone you me or the reader.
thanks
KJ
October 30th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Muhit bhai, I agree with you 100%.
I don’t believe that ‘danga’ is the way to go.
I have had a couple of friends tell me that “there’s no other way but to go for an all-out war against the ruling party” after the incidents that took place in early days of September.
I still think this mass agitaion needs to be avoided.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Two points I want to make
1. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe AL is any better / different from BNP. As an undecided voter I join majority of Bangladeshis in being frustrated by the destructive personally motivated politics of both the parties. As a fisherman in New Market has mentioned, “Bhaiya, they are two sides of the same fish. The smell is there no matter which way you look at it”.
I genuinely want a change. A third force. A political grouping with strong representation of Gen71. Unfortunately I do not see that happening this elections. I do have some plans on what we should do this elections but I’ll wait to articulate them for a couple of more weeks. (I’m just haven’t completed the write-up as yet!)
2. I give AL the upper hand in the parlour politics is because they have come out better after flinging all the mud.
a. Hasina, Jalil and the others were very vocal that they did not want the President to be CTG. Hence when they are now “reluctantly” agreeing people will take it as a goodwill gesture from the AL.
b. Article 58e states: “Certain provisions of the Constitution to remain ineffective. Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 48(3), 141A(1) and 141C(1) of the Constitution, during the period the Non-Party Care-taker government is functioning, provisions in the constitution requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister or upon his prior counter-signature shall be ineffective.”
The above-mentioned clause hence allows the President not (yes that is right – NOT) to listen to the advice of the Caretaker Government! “…provisions in the constitution requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime…shall be ineffective” Effectively what this means is that the President practicality exercise supreme power when it comes to the functioning of the Government.
c. So isn’t it better that we are aware that the President could be a party stooge now, rather than he doing something behind the scenes to jeopardise a free and fair elections?
d. They now have the reform of the Election Commission. (which it seemed they had to give up earlier as they “won” the CTG head!) How can the President now not change MA Aziz and the others, and appear neutral?
e. How has the BNP done? They seem like people who bullied the President into this. We do not have any newspaper, experts or civil society person (other than the obvious BNP people) saying the President did not take liberties with the constitution! And most report backroom politicking by the BNP as a reason for this.
f. Viz a viz the Army. I agree it is still too early to call. The scenario does exist where the President will not agree to Election Commission reform. AL then will start its agitations again. And the gloves will come off. Army has to step into the scene to restore law and order. But they cannot but remain neutral. Hence come out against the worst of BNP activists as well. Sufibaba you are absolutely right - Emergency is not out of the game as yet.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I think it’s more of a case of Sheikh Hasina having to chew her own words. After all that agitation over KM Hasan without contriving a contingency plan, I think AL was in a rut. I dont think they could afford to piss the people off any longer. So, at the end they had to give in and take a diplomatic stand. Pray, what other choice did they have?
I personally, honestly doubt that either of the parties really want a military crackdown. If AL riots had caused the Army to be deployed, they would undoubtedly be branded nihilists. I think AL is bidding its time, waiting for Iajuddin to make his allegiance a little apparent, which he will no doubt, and then they will surely (re)start the agitation.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Hi Farhan
Point taken!
Article 58e as I interpret, is confined to the scope of authority limiting to the President. As you rightly said, this gives his position supreme power over the Council of Advisors/ Caretaker Government. But the inherent problem with this article is that, in an event such as present whereas, the position of President & CTG are both being entrusted to the same individual, to my knowledge, the article do not specify the decision making process. Under different circumstance, such as the last Caretaker Government, the CTG as the head of the Council of Advisors/ Caretaker Government recommends to the President the decision(s) already taken by the Council of Advisors. But, when the President is also the CTG, during the decision making process, does he put ink first as CTG and then as the President. If this happens, Iajudding as CTG is law bound to give his chop on decisions/recommendations that has already been cleared by his Council of advisors. And, then as the President, if required as a party man, he will have to reverse his own recommendation/chop. As an example, if the Council of Advisors take a decision that will hurt BNP’s interest, Iajuddin will first have to agree to it as the CTG and then revoke his own approval as the President, citing Presidents supreme power under 58e!
This will be a very interesting Caretaker Government!!
Cheers
October 30th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Well you are right Sufibaba. Both CTG and President being the same person complicates the process.
Normally in our Parliamentary system the President inks everything (barring ironically Supreme Court Judges and CTG) “under the advice” of the PM. This is to be read “as and only as recommended by the PM”.
During the CTG period the President does not necessarily have to take the advice of the CTG Head. Practically that would be difficult for him to do but he can argue it in the courts if s**t hits the fan!
To prevent from absolute power being excercised, some checks and balances need to be in place. The council of advisers hopefully this time around will fulfill this role!