Search

Thursday, May 5, 2016

EROSION OF DEMOCRACY IN BANGLADESH


Introduction
As democracy swept across the globe through the latter half of the twentieth century, many mechanisms have been instituted to monitor its status so as to protect and promote its core values especially among new and restored democracies. Mandates were established by many international organizations and regional state groupings that would allow them to deal with serious or persistent violations of the principles set out by these bodies.

In the last twenty years or so a broad-based framework has emerged to assess infringements of core political values that constitute democracy and to recommend measures for collective action for speedy restoration of democracy and constitutional rule. The Commonwealth took the lead in this matter and in 1995 established the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) with a special mandate to deal with serious and persistent violations of principles constituting democracy. Key Guidelines were established to determine a situation of concern.  These include.
The unilateral abrogation of a democratic constitution or serious threat to Constitutional rule.
Suspension  or prevention  of  the  lawful  functioning  of parliament or other democratic institutions.
Postponement    of parliamentary elections without constitutional or other reasonable justification
Systematic denial of political space, such as detention of political leaders or restriction of freedom of association, assembly or expression.

In reaching judgment on a situation of concern the following circumstances were considered pertinent :
A national electoral process that is seriously flawed Abrogation of the Rule of Law or undermining of thejudiciary Systematic violation of human rights of the population or of any  communities  or  groups  by  the  member-government concerned and significant restriction  on the media or civil society that prevent them from playing their legitimate role.

It is in the light of this gauge that we turn now to the situation obtaining in Bangladesh.

Constitutional Crisis: Assaults on the Constitution
Bangladesh is a classic example of how democracy has been usurped and compromised in a calculated and premeditated manner; its people disenfranchised and an unelected government allowed to consolidate its path to absolute rule.

It is universally recognized that the essence of democracy is peaceful changeover of governments through regular and credible elections.    Dictatorship can only be imposed or removed by force. It is also universally acknowledged that the worst  form  of  dictatorship  is  a  democratically  elected government that perpetuates its rule through manipulation of the electoral process. This is the scenario that now obtains in Bangladesh.

13th Amendment to the Constitution
As is well-known, the main reason for the current political impasse in Bangladesh was the ruling Awami League government's decision to abrogate the constitutional provision i.e. the 13th Amendment, for a non-party caretaker government to supervise elections to the Tenth parliament.
Ever since the overthrow of the dictatorial regime of Hussain Muhammad Ershad in December 1990 and the re-introduction of parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh one concern has remained constant in the minds of all the political parties' viz. to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. There were deep-rooted suspicions that elections under a political government would be tampered with and manipulated and that the incumbent government would do everything in its power to seek to perpetuate it's rule.
It may be recalled that in  all, three parliamentary general elections were held in Bangladesh, under some form of neutral, interim, poll-time government in 1991, 1996 and 2001 respectively. The provision for a neutral, non-party caretaker government was formalized in the Constitution through the 13thAmendment by a unanimous decision of the parliament in 1996. Ironically, this was to accommodate the unrelenting demand of the AL in collaboration with the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jatiyo Party for such a system. The help of the Commonwealth was sought earlier to try and mediate a solution but to no avail. Sir Ninian Stephens, the Special Representative of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, after a sincere and long-drawn out effort failed to reach an agreement in the face of the total intransigence of the AL. The AL boycotted the elections to the 7th Parliament which installed a BNP government. The latter's sole task was to enact the 13th Amendment before dissolving parliament and calling for elections to the 8th parliament.

The 13th Amendment was the AL's brainchild. It provided for a neutral, non-party caretaker government with a maximum time of 90 days to oversee general elections, after the dissolution of the parliament.

This system continued until the unconstitutional overthrow of the democratically elected government on January 11, 2007. The army-backed caretaker government that took over failed to find any other alternative to the two major parties who had
ruled in the preceding elections. It is widely considered to have made a deal with one of them viz. the Awami League and thus put in effect a face-saving exit by stage-managing elections to the 9th parliament. The AL swept to victory with a two-thirds majority which enabled it to consolidate its hold on power through tinkering with the Constitution.

Bolstered by this majority, the AL totally reversed its position by taking steps in 2011 leading to the annulment of the 13th Amendment. Its actions were precipitate.  There was no pre­ election pledge for such annulment. It was not mandated in the AL Manifesto. There was no public demand for such change. It was not  a governance priority.   The push  to do so was impelled by a deliberate decision, a single-minded pursuit, to gamer absolute control over the electoral process. The 15th Amendment was for all intents and purposes a "Project" - a calculated process to capture the electoral mechanism.   Inthe eyes of many analysts it was a reassertion of the BAKSHAL syndrome that motivated the Prime Minister's father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman i.e. to betray democracy by reverting to one­ party rule.


15th Amendment

The AL government adopted the 15th Amendment. This provided that general elections be held within 90 days preceding dissolution of parliament that is under the existing political government, with Members of Parliament in place.
Such a provision is unique. It is not based on the Westminster model as repeatedly claimed by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. It is unprecedented in the practice of democracy especially among Commonwealth countries where, without exception, a poll-time interim government whether incumbent or otherwise is always established after the dissolution of parliament.
In electoral terms, the 15th Amendment has inherent flaws : It does not provide for a level playing field and can lead to inequality among contestants
MP's continue to hold office and exercise disproportionate influence in their constituencies.
Legal contradictions are rife as various constitutiona articles clash with each other (e.g. Article 19 and 27 and Article 66 and 123 (3a) (iv) The validity of MP's elections is subject  to legal challenge across the board.
Perhaps, it was in anticipation of these factors that the Chief Justice in his "Short Order" of May 2011 while declaring the 13thAmendment null and void also suggested that elections to the 10th and 11th parliament (the next two in succession) might be held under the caretaker government system based on the age old principles of "necessity', "safety of the people" and "safety of the State". The AL government hastily adopted the 15th Amendment, one month later (30 June, 2011) to put paid to any such possibility.
[N.B. 1: It is underscored here that the High Court Division recently, in its verdict of 19 June, 2015 on a writ petition challenging the legality of the general election of January 5, 2014 came up with two formulas for an interim government to assist the Election Commission  in holding the next two parliamentary elections (11th and 12th). These were as follows:(i) An incumbent Prime Minister- led election - time government with 50 fresh Ministers from all parties or (ii) The main opposition party to govern the country for the last one year of the five year tenure of the parliament. The HC Division also suggested providing the Election Commission with powers to overturn orders or directions of any Minister and even the Prime Minister in a cogent manner. Both major parties rejected the two formulas as unconstitutional (AL) and unrealistic and inapplicable (BNP). However, the High Court judgment underlines the unease of the judiciary along with the great majority of the people of the validity of the 15th Amendment.]
It is apparent that the Bangladesh electoral scenario has added a new more virulent dimension to the consideration of persistent violations of democratic values and principles. It goes beyond the factor of "unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government or otherwise" and enters a new more dangerous manifestation that of perpetuating the rule of a democratically elected government by paving the path to manipulating the electoral process. It is an example of a permanent dictatorship in disguise leading to one-party  elections.

The present AL government holds that the BNP call for a neutral, non-party, caretaker government has been precluded by the 15th Amendment and unless the Constitution is again amended by three-fourth majority in parliament it remains the law of the land.  It contends that not to hold elections would leave a constitutional vacuum. The question remains whether a bad law, railroaded through brute majority of the legislature and not conforming  to recognized  values  and precepts  of democracy is sacrosanct.

The AL insisted that they had to hold elections to fulfill the constitutional requirement laid down in the 15th Amendment. They promised (falsely) however, that they would .immediately thereafter, initiate dialogue to resolve the issue. The so-called claim of constitutional obligation was met with derision in the face of the government's conspicuous  constitutional lapses including: (i) A resignation fiasco prior to setting up a poll time government (ii) The Prime Minister 's offer of an aU­ Party government which was a prescription for a single party ruling alliance (iii) Parallel continuation of the 9th parliament (not dismissed by the President) with the 10th parliament with 600   MP's   holding    overlapping  jurisdiction    (iv)   the incongruous dual role that continues to be played by the Jatiyo Party (Ershad) of serving on the Treasury Bench (3 Cabinet Ministers). as well as constituting the major opposition in parliament.
[N.B. 2:  In a scathing report entitled "Parliamentary Watch" (issued   on   25.10.2015)   the   Transparency   International Bangladesh   published   the findings of a study on the functioning   and   performance    of   the   1oth   parliament constituted after the flawed January 5, 2014 elections. It was based on an assessment of 112 working days (July 2014 to June 2015) of the parliament.  Amongst the findings, the following were highlighted:

The Tenth Parliament turned into an absolute forum for the Ruling Party due to "so-called"opposition's failure to assert its role in the house.
Instead of constructive criticism the opposition engaged in "sycophancy".
The lawmakers spent only 6% of overall time (388 hours and 35 minutes) for formulation and passing of laws and only 29 of 350 law makers took part in the enactment of 30 laws in 14 months.
Serious quorum crisis ate up more than 48 hours.

Not only parliamentarians but also Parliamentary Standing Committees and even the Speaker showed ineffectiveness putting into question transparency and accountability of the parliament.

The reaction of the government and "opposition" was typical. It was one of total rejection and threats against the Transparency International. They called it an international conspiracy (timing coincided with the killing of two foreigners and bomb attack on Shia mosque.]

Inherent Flaws of 15th Amendment

The 15th Amendment as a whole was subject to widespread criticism as it contained controversial provisions impinging on the fundamental rights of people and indeed, affecting their ownership of the Constitution. Among key elements were the following: (i) It revoked the provision for referendum (ii) One-third of the Constitution was placed outside the purview of amendment thus curtailing rights of future parliaments (iii) A new Article 7A permitted the bringing of sedition charges against anyone seeking to abrogate, repeal or suspend the Constitution. Punishment of sedition carries the highest punishment prescribed for other offences by the existing laws
(iv) While the government reinstated secularism as one of the fundamental pillars of the Constitution, it found it expedient to retain portion of the 8th Amendment which declared that the state religion of the Republic is Islam (v) It declared all citizens of Bangladesh to be 'Bangalis" directly counter to the wishes of the indigenous minorities (vi) It scrapped the 13th Amendment pushing the country into confrontation and laying the ground for one party rule.

Civil society groups in Bangladesh since 2008 have been urging _ constitutional reform and the establishment  of a "Constitutional Reform Commission" to bring necessary changes for a more effective democratic system. In 2015 a platform of distinguished personalities calling themselves the Concerned Citizens Group reiterated these demands. The key thrust was directed at bringing about checks and balances  of the  absolute power  of the  Prime  Minister. Letters were addressed to the President, Prime Minister and Chairperson of BNP. The Prime Minister lambasted those seeking Charter reform saying they were Advisers to former military   dictators   or  worked  under   them   in  various capacities.    Prime Minister claimed that after assuming office, the government had created scope for freedom of expression by opening doors to free thinking.  She asserted that "the more democracy they have, the more they demand - they are always demanding more, more and more." Her mindset speaks for itself.

Further Assaults on the Constitution: Separation of Powers violated

Legislature Vs Judiciary: Impact of 16th Amendment

On September 17, 2014 the parliament passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution empowering parliament to impeach Supreme Court judges for their misdemeanor or incapacity.  This was considered a fateful moment in the nation's history since it negated the bedrock principle of separation of powers and checks and balances between the three organs of state on which the democratic nature of the government  stands. With  the  enactment  of  the  16th Amendment   the  government   effectively   allowed   the judiciary to be shackled.  It is interesting to note that more than half of the 327 MP's who voted for the Amendment were not elected by the people  and had won their seat uncontested . The  provision   for  the  Chief  Justice  led Supreme Judicial Council ceased to exist after more than 35 years of its introduction.

Executive Vs Judiciary

One of the most discriminatory laws is the Mobile Court Act 2007.  Following separation of the lower judiciary from the government   in   2007,   the   then   army-backed   caretaker government facing intense criticism, gave back some of the judicial powers to the civil servants. Mobile Courts were to be run  by  Executive  Magistrates  (EM)  but  punishment  was restricted  to  monetary   fines.    In  January  2009  the  AL government under a new Ordinance gave them more powers. They could sentence guilty persons to maximum jail term of two years and punish an alleged offender even after he/she denies the offence.
The existing provision empowered the EM to punish  offenders  only  after he/she  admits  wrongdoing. More than 100 laws were included in the schedule including trial of electoral offenders despite the fact that the Supreme Constitutional  Commission  led  by  the  Chief  Justice  had decided that only experienced judicial magistrates should be engaged to try electoral offences. The High Court in response to a writ petition in October 2011 questioned the legality of Mobile Courts and asked the government to explain within four months why powers of the EM's through Mobile Courts should not be declared unconstitutional.   
The matter is still pending on the hearing list and has been effectively shelved. The government, meanwhile, continued to favor bureaucrats over judicial officers.  In August 2015 it approved proposals for a Civil  Service law which  would  provide  government servants with a legal shield for criminal cases filed against them while discharging their official duty. They could not be detained for crimes such as graft, bribe, extortion etc. without permission   of  the  government  before  a  charge  sheet  is accepted by the court.

Local Government

In 2015 the AL government took a number of decisions relating to local government that was construed to be an assault on the Constitution .

On July 7, 2015 the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) approved the Rural Infrastructure - 2 Project designed to allocate Tk. 6070 Crore to 284 MP's (Tk 20 crore each) to develop infrastructure projects to be implemented by the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED). Separate allocations were to be given to the remaining 16 MP's (in urban centers) and 50 women MP's from reserved seats. This decision was a follow up of a similar project adopted in 2010 (completed 2014) by which 279 MP's were given Tk. 15 crore each.

This  decision  was  not  only  a  violation  of  the Constitution (Principles of Separation of Powers Part N of the Constitution and Article 59 (2)) but also of decisions of the Supreme Court.  It has the potential to turn law makers into law breakers. The 20 I 0 ECNEC decision was challenged and heard by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court (concluded May 28, 2012) and listed for judgment. This  too,  however, was  consigned  to  the  deep freeze.  A similar situation in India was seriously criticized  on grounds  of corruption  and lack of accountability. The court ruled that it cut at the root of the parliamentary system of democracy in the country.
On October 12, 2015 the AL government's cabinet approved two proposals amending Local Government laws (They were subsequently enacted into law). These included:
Empowering government to appoint Administrators for running  municipalities  (pourashabas),  upazila  and  union parishads (councils) if elections to these bodies are not held in time.
To bring changes in the law making election to all local bodies partisan. (Under current law, Chiefs/members of local bodies could continue in office till holding of the next elections).
It is important to note that despite changes in the system from Presidential to Parliamentary democracy in 1991, local government bodies still function in the presidential format i.e. all heads are elected directly by the electorate and are not accountable to councilors and members. The proposed changes in the local government body law, to hold elections on partisan lines, will not ensure any qualitative change in their function and powers nor will it strengthen in any way the democratic system and practice at the grassroots level. It will  indeed,  impact negatively, by increasing inter-alia the  influence of partisan politics over local government bodies; opening up nomination business, deteriorating the quality of services, easing out good candidates and shrinking opportunities of women for leadership and employment.
An even more ominous consequence is the politicization, control and capture by the current Ruling Party of all local government institutions. Cause for such conern has been gradually evolving:

MP's have been made Advisers to upazila parishads (Councils)
Partymen have been appointed as Administrators to the District (Zila) parishads
As of October 1, 205 the government empowered bureaucrats to lead Divisional and District Coordination Committees, weakening the local government system
On October 12, 2015 the Cabinet approved proposals to amend local government laws seeking to appoint administrators to run municipalities, upazila and union parishads if elections were not held on time. At present, the government already has power to appoint Administrators to Zila parishads (61 were appointed in 2011 for indefinite period) and City Corporations (In Dhaka City Corporation 12 Administrators were appointed until the April 2015 elections).
The government thus has a back-up potential, a residual power, to appoint Administrators to all local government bodies if elections are not held on time.

Integrity of the Election Process

There is deep-rooted  consciousness  in  Bangladesh  that  a political government    orders the civil and election administration in such a manner that it tilts in favor of the regime  in  power.    The door  is  wide  open  to  election engineering and manipulation. Bangladesh's record in the past bears incontrovertible proof.   No parliament in Bangladesh elected under a political government completed its full tenure. All ended in military rule or mass-uprising.  All governments elected under a neutral, non-partisan, caretaker government completed their 5 year tenure.  The 9th and 1oth parliaments are exception to this rule. The 9th parliamentary election was held under army disposition favoring the Awami League and the Ioth parliament election under AL rule was fundamentally flawed from its inception.
Elections held under a political government needs a powerful independent Election Commission, a healthy political culture, a  non-politicized  bureaucracy,  judiciary, police  force  and stable  law  and  order  situation.  It is  widely  held  that  an objective, impartial and independent Election Commission is impossible in Bangladesh. The reason is simple. The EC does not have the manpower to operate independently and conduct election of an electorate of 90 million people.  
Furthermore, absolute power vests in the Prime Minister to overrule any decision made by the Election Commission. The machinery of election i.e. returning officers, presiding officers, magistracy, police and deployment of the army is controlled by the Prime Minister.   All of these entities have been highly politicized through such measures as according them rapid promotion; pay raises etc. or deterrent measures such as transfers, being declared Officer on Special Duty etc. Itis clear that the EC can act independently only under a non-partisan government.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The EC's role since the general election of 2008 (9th Parliament) has been highly controversial. It has been routinely affirming elections as free, fair and credible in the face of widespread electoral abuse, violence, rigging, ballot-box snatching etc. all of which have been glaringly exposed in all media printed and electronic. These were manifest in the January 5, 2014 general election, the Upazila elections held in five phases from February to March, 2015 and the City Corporation elections (Dhaka and Chittagong) in April 2015.
Currently, the Election Commission is engaged in preparing a new electoral roll by reviewing the voters list to include eligible young voters. Concern and criticism is mounting on several counts (i) Why is the first phase of up-dating the roll taking place during the monsoon period (ii) Why have NGO'S traditionally used in voter registration not been included as data collectors this year (iii) Why have the recently decentralized server status of the upazila/thana not been utilized (iv) Why have a huge number of non-election officials been recruited as appellate authority for voter registration instead of upazila/thana and District/regional election officers under the current legal provisions. These questions have raised eyebrows over the integrity of the electoral system.

Seriously Flawed National Election Process
Despite repeated calls at home and abroad for dialogue to arrive at a negotiated settlement, the ruling party (AL) pushed ahead with its agenda to force through one-sided elections. It frustrated the sustained efforts of the UN Secretary-General over almost a year to promote dialogue and negotiations for a credible, free, fair and inclusive election.

On January 5, 2014 the government railroaded what was recognized worldwide as a flawed, stage-managed election and fraud vote. The Statesman (Indian daily) in an editorial on 11.1.2014 called it an "exercise in self-deception" and "an obituary of democracy". The Daily Star (Bangladesh) editor on 17.1.2014 in a scathing commentary said the AL "brutally, ruthlessly, according to plan, used state power to hijack the election. What was dubbed an election was engineered, its results were bull-dozed and the so-called victory that emanated pre-determined. "

Among major anomalies of the election the following may be noted:
Most countries and international organizations including the Commonwealth refused to send observers in the wake of assessments of advance teams.
A government was formed without the great majority of voters playing any part or casting any vote. 154 of 300 seats (including the Speaker and 23 Ministers) were won uncontested long before the elections were held as declared by the Election Commissioner. This was an unprecedented game-changer for the AL.
Elections to the remaining 146 seats held on January 5, 2014 saw a meager turnout (less than l0% though the Election Commission claimed 40% turnout. Some 30 - 40 parties did not participate. Even this rump election saw large-scale rigging, voter intimidation etc. widely portrayed in all media electronic and printed.
Elections were preceded by a bizarre seat sharing deal between the AL and its coalition partners. The dubious role played by the Jatiyo party has already been covered above.
The validity and legitimacy of the election was widely questioned and its moral and legal dimensions characterized as a gaping democracy deficit.
Despite its declaration of a boycott the opposition was hounded. Its leaders were put in jail on trumped up criminal charges. Its workers arbitrarily arrested en-masse and the Chairperson barricaded into house arrest before and after the election.
The outcome of the election had devastating consequences for democracy, development and human rights. It placed Bangladesh literally in an authoritarian strait-jacket. Spin­ offs included the following:
The real losers were the people of Bangladesh, disenfranchised and denied the right to choose their own representatives
Despite oft-repeated pledges to hold dialogue on the issue of an interim poll-time government the AL reneged on its assurances. The President of Bangladesh Mr. Abdul Hamid, indeed, conveyed to the UN Secretary General (19 June, 2014) that while the government was open to dialogue with the opposition this will only take place after its tenure ends in 2019.
With no opposition in parliament, Bangladesh saw a one-party election lead to a one-party state heading towards absolutism.

Without representation, without the mandate of the people, without accountability and the checks and balances pivotal to good governance an all-powerful government spawned political repression, economic malgovernance and unchecked corruption.

The January 5, 2014 election vindicated the opposition stance that no election under a political government with a supine Election Commission could be free, fair and credible. People flatly rejected the contrived election and spurious vote. This was also borne out by the results of the upazila elections (first two phases before the results were corrupted in the last three phases by massive vote rigging and violence). The City Corporation elections in Dhaka and Chittagong in April 2015 witnessed the same excesses leading to the withdrawal of the BNP candidates.

The overwhelming majority of people underscored time and again that to be considered legitimate elections must be held under a neutral, non-partisan government with the participation of all parties.

Human Rights Violations

In close conjunction with maneuvers to control and suborn the electoral process, the government embarked on a sustained and calculated campaign of human rights violations. The main aim was to marginalize the opposition and to repress and contain dissent of any kind against the government. This assumed several vitriolic dimensions:
Denial of political space to the opposition accompanied by a policy of incitement and retaliation by Awami League goons backed by security forces.
Arbitrary detention and mass arrest of leaders and activists through indiscriminate use of black laws and false criminal charges.
Containment of freedom of speech through implicit threat and intimidation.
Promotion and protection of human rights is a crucial gauge as to whether a democratically elected government has fulfilled its mandate to provide good governance and the rule of law. The AL government's performance over the last 7 years has been abysmal.  It totally failed to meet any of the objective benchmarks   for  upholding   human   rights.    Abuses   are widespread, systematic, sustained and clearly sanctioned by the government.    No effort has been  made to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators for offences especially the prime movers  the security and law enforcement  agencies. National  and  international  organizations  and  media  that monitor,  investigate  and  report  on  such  violations  face continuous obstacles, threats and harassment  by an overly suspicious  government.
The government's performance came under the UN's spotlight twice in 2009 and 2013 when it came up for review by the UN Human Right Council's Universal Periodic Review  in Geneva. The Bangladesh Reports were considered to be rife with misrepresentation and empty rhetoric. Three specific claims by government were exposed as false (i) That it continued to maintain a policy of zero tolerance towards extra­ judicial killings, custodial deaths etc. (ii) The alleged passage of a Police Reform Act with a stringent Code of Conduct and (iii) That there was no scope for immunity for armed forces and law enforcement agencies for human rights violations. What became apparent was a clear, persistent pattern of default and callous disregard for mounting human rights violations across the board. Even the pro-AL government Chairman of the Bangladesh Human Rights Commission repeatedly asserted that "there is no rule of law in Bangladesh". The actual figures are astounding. Widely reported in the media quoting international and national human rights organizational sources a picture has emerged of what the editor of the Daily Star on 7.3.2014 claimed as 'the most flagrant, dangerous, nation-destroying abuse of power by the very people entrusted to dispense justice and establish the rule of law."
They outlined in the period of AL rule (2009 - 2015) a cumulatively mounting toll of victims in the hundreds of thousands of political violence, extra-judicial killings, custodial deaths, enforced disappearances, torture, rapes, acid throwing, mass beatings and atrocities against women and children. The BNP listed during the period 26 December 2012 till 27 January, 2014 some 242 leaders killed, 60 enforced disappearances and over 30,000 arrested. Differences over statistics have been overtaken by recognition of the undoubted mounting toll of victims of all categories. Alongside the above, concentrated attacks on religious and ethnic minorities have assumed an alarming  trend  with no recourse to investigation, apprehension or punishment of perpetrators. The government's inaction and apathy are inexplicable.
The prime failing of the government is its inability and unwillingness to stop extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances by the Rapid Action Battalion and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) and to bring the perpetrators to brook. Euphemistically called cross-fire, encounter, shootouts etc. these are ludicrous excuses to justify custodial deaths. Despite numerous High Court Order calling for a freeze of the practice, despite pre-poll Manifesto pledges and post-poll assertions of "Zero-tolerance" the practice continues unabated. The government has gone full circle from opposition to denial to justification. Frustration over the  government's apathy reached such a stage that it led to demands and even threat of a social movement. The Human Rights Watch in an unprecedented move in 2011 called on the government to either reform RAB or to disband it. Since then it continues to call for RAB's ban.

Violations of Freedom of Speech
As already pointed out a new Article 7A (included after the 7th Amendment) equates criticism of the Constitution with sedition carrying the harshest punishment. It remains a 'Damocles Sword" for intimidation. New off-shoots of restriction on freedom of expression are emerging. These affect broadcast policy, internet freedom and preventing cyber crime.
The government has enacted or amended a number of laws and policies including (i) Bangladesh Information Security Guidelines (ii) National Broadcast Policy (iii) The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act 2006 amended in 2009 and again in 2013 all of which have been aimed at tightening control and curbing freedom of expression. The main thrust of these provisions is inter-alia (i) to increase punishment (on ICT from 10years to 14years) and heavy fine) (ii) Confiscation of hardware (iii) appointing controllers and giving them impunity (iv) empowering Law Enforcement Agencies to arrest anyone, anywhere without warrant. At best it has forced self-censorship and at worst provided abundant scope for misuse by the LEA.

A Cyber Security Act is also being formulated actively since August 2015. It is aimed at increasing punishment (has provision for 20 years sentence) and to arrest suspects without warrant for committing cyber crimes. The move is considered another measure to curb  freedom of expression explicitly directed on different media platforms and on bloggers.
Section 57 of the ICT act 2006 was widely criticized to be against people's right to freedom of expression. It was held that because of its vagueness it created scope for misuse against newsmen and media workers. Most cases of violations under the ICT Act 2006 (verdicts have been given in 47 of 136 cases in the last 3 years) have been filed by party loyalists for defaming Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her family. Ironically, the ACC website has been hacked with no one brought to book and the authorities completely at sea over the source.
Compared to these dire measures in Bangladesh the Supreme Court of India has scrapped Section 66/A of the Information and Technology Act that empowered police to arrest people for Facebook and Twitter comments. The Court observed that it curbed people's right to express themselves freely and was in direct conflict with the democratic values of India. It held Section 66/A to be unconstitutional.
It may be mentioned that on July 26, 2010 the High Court directed the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology to show cause why Section 46 and 57 of the ICT Act 2006 allowing (i) blocking of websites and electronic communication and (ii) providing for prosecution of certain offences should not be held 'ultra-vires'. The matter is still on the pending list!
The Annual Reports of Global Human Rights Organizations and Statements issued by the Legislative bodies of key countries e.g. the European Union Parliament, US Congress, UK parliament etc. have summed up some of the chronic issues of concern and called for remedial action. These are listed below:

Safety: Labor Rights
Despite some amendments after the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse, garment workers continued to report intimidation and violence when attempting to form or join unions. Poor regulatory systems have resulted in avoidable accidents that have killed hundreds (Rana Plaza, Tazreen Fashions etc.) The government Inspection Report on Safety has been repressed.

Rohingya Refugees and Boat People
With the government making dire threats about forcibly returning the Rohingya refugees, international humanitarian groups continued to report difficulty in gaining access  to refugee camps. Registering the plight of boat people and
Rohingya refugees from Myanmar (victims of human trafficking) there  was widespread criticism of the AL government leadership (i) for not being pro-active and (ii) of the Prime Minister in particular for her callous remarks (which received widespread coverage) condemning the Bangladesh refugees as being "mentally sick" people who should be punished for tarnishing the image of Bangladesh.

Civil Society: NGOs

After years of  increasing restrictions on civil society, the government introduced a draft bill in 2015 that would formalize restrictive practices and policies and make access to foreign funding particularly onerous. Maina Kiai, the UN Special Rapporteur on Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, while in Dhaka urged the Bangladesh parliament not to adopt the Bill entitled Draft Donations (Voluntary Activities) Regulation Act which was to be debated in parliament. Considering it to be deeply worrying the Special Rapporteur noted that the proposed law would make it compulsory for NGO's seeking foreign funds to:
Register with the government controlled NGO Affairs Bureau obtain its approval for each project undertaken  with these resources
Bureau Commissioner’s would review on a monthly basis progress in implementing projects
The Bureau would have authority to approve appointment of foreign specialists as well as all travel paid by foreign funding.
Failure to comply could lead to cancellation or suspension of an NGO's registration , interruption of the project and fine up to 3 times the amount of foreign funding.. Maina Kiai felt that such government intrusion was ''unacceptable" as the ability to seek, secure and use resources is essential to the very existence and effective operation of any civil society organization.  The European parliament also asked the government to allow such organizations  to undertake  their  missions  freely  including Amnesty International and the TIB.

Freedom of Speech
New media policies in Bangladesh were considered to have imposed unacceptable limits on freedom of speech and expression. The government was asked inter-alia:
To recognize and respect these rights, to revoke the new media policy and to abide by obligations to allow free speech and expression.
To restore  full independence  of the media and to drop all charges against editors/journalists who have published content critical of the government.
To allow immediate opening of all media houses and social media sources that were shut and to immediately restore full and unhindered access to all forms of publications including electronic ones.
To bring in line the Cyber Security Act of 20l 5 and the Information and Communication Technology Act with international free speech standards and to stop criminalization of anti-state publications.
To bring an end to limitations of free speech through threats and harassment and so-called self-censorship of criticism for fear of reprisal

Human Rights Abuse

The governments' failure to prosecute security forces for serious abuses has been repeatedly highlighted.
Serious concern has been expressed over investigations into the recent killings of civilians. Attacks on bloggers, activists, publishers and killing of foreign citizens were strongly condemned. Loss of life and targeting of individual citizens was deplored. The Bangladesh authorities were strongly called upon to launch credible and transparent investigations of these killings and to identify the perpetrators of such heinous crimes and bring them to justice. It was held that the link to lack of democratic practices was undeniable. The government was also urged to release all political leaders that have been detained for participating in or being thought to participate in protected speech and assembly.
Social  Factors
Criticism was directed over the fact that child marriages still persist. 65% of girls were married under the age of 18. 29% were married under the age of 15.

Other Chronic Elements
Among other chronic factors reference was made to widespread corruption, weak judicial capacity and independence, arbitrary arrests and lengthy pre-trial detentions and infringement of privacy rights.

National Dialogue
Calls across the board have been made asking the government to accept a national dialogue with opposition political parties and civil society on the current crisis.  The GOB has been strongly urged to initiate dialogue with all democratic parties to (i) the democratic process by holding a credible, genuine, transparent and inclusive election and (ii) to hold national dialogue to overcome the current instability.
International organizations and legislative bodies of many countries and regions have stopped just short of recommending punitive actions. Foreign governments while critical have not yet pushed for direct sanctions. However, some suggestions are assuming a progressively harder stance. Indeed, as recently as October 2015 the European Parliament asked the EU to review trade relations with Bangladesh until it ensures return of the democratic government in the country. It asked member delegations to use all available instruments to ensure respect of human rights and rule of law in Bangladesh including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The European Parliament called on the EU in line with its "Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy" to immediately raise concerns with the Bangladesh authorities.
-
Published by the Publication Sub-Committee, 6th BNP Council 2016. Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

No comments:

Post a Comment