TRANSPARENCY International Bangladesh (TIB) has proposed that deputy commissioners (DC) should not be appointed as returning officers in the upcoming national election, taking into consideration the issue of “politicisation in administration.” It has also recommended that the Election Commission (EC) should employ its own officials in conducting the next parliamentary polls.
“District election officials, not DCs, should be employed as returning officers. We all know how politicised the government machinery has become … We cannot rely on the DCs,” TIB Trustee M. Hafizuddin Khan said at the launch of TIB research report in the capital recently.
The above observations are a scathing indictment on the unreliability of a significant part of the country’s public service. The DC is invariably a senior official belonging to the Bangladesh Civil Service (Administration) Cadre who is posted at the district level in a supervisory and coordinating post. Adequate care is supposed to be taken to ensure the merit and integrity of such holders of important public office.
Under the circumstances, it would indeed be very unfortunate if our citizens have to forsake their trust that is reposed in the exalted office of the DC. However, one can take issue with the TIB trustee’s observation that EC should be able to conduct the election with its own officials and that employees of a constitutional body like the EC are capable and trustworthy enough to conduct the election.
In needs to be pointed out that since mid-1990s constitutional appointees like High Court judges have proved to be dismally incapable in performing the onerous functions of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). In fact, the caretaker controversy owes its origin to the bungled and mismanaged bye-election of Magura in mid-1990s when a CEC belonging to the higher judiciary failed to rise to the occasion for doing the needful despite overwhelming evidence on the field to warrant the postponement of a malpractice-laden election.
Readers may recollect the antics of Justice M.A. Aziz, another former CEC, who till date stands accused of preparing fake voter’s list and squandering crores of public money on procurement that could not be accounted for. The less said about former Judge Sadeque Ali, another election commissioner, the better.
The point to note is that the smooth holding of national and mayoral elections depends to a large extent on the unstinted assistance and cooperation of the regulatory outfits of general administration and the law enforcement machinery. District level principal officers of these outfits are generally senior officers belonging to the regularly constituted service cadre, and it is highly unlikely that they will extend ungrudging support to the election officers who are junior appointees.
If TIB’s proposal has to be acted upon by engaging those junior appointees as returning officers then imbalance and inconvenience are likely outcomes on account of seniority and the status syndrome prevalent in our bureaucratic culture. As of now, this reality cannot be lost sight of. While it is true that the last mayoral election at Chittagong was well managed by a capable lady officer belonging to the EC it has to be remembered that national election is a different ball game in which large-scale departure from existing practice will entail serious risk.
In a democratic state, the electoral process exercises determining power over those who hold political office. It is the electorate which confers the power to govern and calls government to account. The electoral system should be able to ensure a full franchise, and make sure that the value of each vote cast is equal to that of every other vote. It has to ensure that the conduct of election campaigns is regulated to ensure legality and fairness; and voting system is capable of producing both a legislative body representative of the electorate and a government with sufficient democratic support to be able to govern effectively.
We need to know that each aspect of the electoral process combines to form a system. Political bosses must not able to gerrymander constituencies so as to suit their own interests. Legal provisions would mean nothing if enforcement is left wholly in the hands of those who profit by breaking them.
In our situation, if DCs have been politicised, as alleged, then what is the guarantee that other segments of our public service including election officers have remained immune to the virus? Are we sure that election officials recruited during political governments did not receive political patronage? The moot point is, who has caused the so-called politicisation and how has it occurred? Would it not be proper to treat the malaise with a view to establishing a healthy polity?
Must we not gain by emphasising that the Civil Service owes its loyalty to the government of the day, irrespective of political party, and it is imperative that the Service avoids creating the impression of political bias. The anonymity and political neutrality of civil servants is reinforced by the rules restricting political activity. If the Civil Service is to serve governments of all political persuasions, it is imperative that civil servants, whatever their private political views, should not be seen to be politically active in a manner which would inevitably compromise their neutrality under one political party or another.
Divesting the DCs of their duties as returning officers on grounds of alleged politicisation would be untenably ludicrous because they will continue to perform multiple executive functions of developmental significance even after being branded unreliable for electoral assignments. Let there be a halt to the pernicious institution bashing. Let us treat the disease and not the symptoms.
It may not be incorrect to presume that the job of the EC pertaining to holding of election has largely been an executive assignment accompanied by quasi-judicial functions. Experiences in Bangladesh indicate that the EC has fared well under the stewardship of former executives. We still require well-rounded executives to adequately perform the onerous functions of returning officers in the national election.
“District election officials, not DCs, should be employed as returning officers. We all know how politicised the government machinery has become … We cannot rely on the DCs,” TIB Trustee M. Hafizuddin Khan said at the launch of TIB research report in the capital recently.
The above observations are a scathing indictment on the unreliability of a significant part of the country’s public service. The DC is invariably a senior official belonging to the Bangladesh Civil Service (Administration) Cadre who is posted at the district level in a supervisory and coordinating post. Adequate care is supposed to be taken to ensure the merit and integrity of such holders of important public office.
Under the circumstances, it would indeed be very unfortunate if our citizens have to forsake their trust that is reposed in the exalted office of the DC. However, one can take issue with the TIB trustee’s observation that EC should be able to conduct the election with its own officials and that employees of a constitutional body like the EC are capable and trustworthy enough to conduct the election.
In needs to be pointed out that since mid-1990s constitutional appointees like High Court judges have proved to be dismally incapable in performing the onerous functions of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). In fact, the caretaker controversy owes its origin to the bungled and mismanaged bye-election of Magura in mid-1990s when a CEC belonging to the higher judiciary failed to rise to the occasion for doing the needful despite overwhelming evidence on the field to warrant the postponement of a malpractice-laden election.
Readers may recollect the antics of Justice M.A. Aziz, another former CEC, who till date stands accused of preparing fake voter’s list and squandering crores of public money on procurement that could not be accounted for. The less said about former Judge Sadeque Ali, another election commissioner, the better.
The point to note is that the smooth holding of national and mayoral elections depends to a large extent on the unstinted assistance and cooperation of the regulatory outfits of general administration and the law enforcement machinery. District level principal officers of these outfits are generally senior officers belonging to the regularly constituted service cadre, and it is highly unlikely that they will extend ungrudging support to the election officers who are junior appointees.
If TIB’s proposal has to be acted upon by engaging those junior appointees as returning officers then imbalance and inconvenience are likely outcomes on account of seniority and the status syndrome prevalent in our bureaucratic culture. As of now, this reality cannot be lost sight of. While it is true that the last mayoral election at Chittagong was well managed by a capable lady officer belonging to the EC it has to be remembered that national election is a different ball game in which large-scale departure from existing practice will entail serious risk.
In a democratic state, the electoral process exercises determining power over those who hold political office. It is the electorate which confers the power to govern and calls government to account. The electoral system should be able to ensure a full franchise, and make sure that the value of each vote cast is equal to that of every other vote. It has to ensure that the conduct of election campaigns is regulated to ensure legality and fairness; and voting system is capable of producing both a legislative body representative of the electorate and a government with sufficient democratic support to be able to govern effectively.
We need to know that each aspect of the electoral process combines to form a system. Political bosses must not able to gerrymander constituencies so as to suit their own interests. Legal provisions would mean nothing if enforcement is left wholly in the hands of those who profit by breaking them.
In our situation, if DCs have been politicised, as alleged, then what is the guarantee that other segments of our public service including election officers have remained immune to the virus? Are we sure that election officials recruited during political governments did not receive political patronage? The moot point is, who has caused the so-called politicisation and how has it occurred? Would it not be proper to treat the malaise with a view to establishing a healthy polity?
Must we not gain by emphasising that the Civil Service owes its loyalty to the government of the day, irrespective of political party, and it is imperative that the Service avoids creating the impression of political bias. The anonymity and political neutrality of civil servants is reinforced by the rules restricting political activity. If the Civil Service is to serve governments of all political persuasions, it is imperative that civil servants, whatever their private political views, should not be seen to be politically active in a manner which would inevitably compromise their neutrality under one political party or another.
Divesting the DCs of their duties as returning officers on grounds of alleged politicisation would be untenably ludicrous because they will continue to perform multiple executive functions of developmental significance even after being branded unreliable for electoral assignments. Let there be a halt to the pernicious institution bashing. Let us treat the disease and not the symptoms.
It may not be incorrect to presume that the job of the EC pertaining to holding of election has largely been an executive assignment accompanied by quasi-judicial functions. Experiences in Bangladesh indicate that the EC has fared well under the stewardship of former executives. We still require well-rounded executives to adequately perform the onerous functions of returning officers in the national election.
No comments:
Post a Comment