The phenomenon of high-ranking bureaucrats joining political parties after retirement is a matter of concern for many citizens. This is because it raises questions about their true loyalty and the integrity of the bureaucracy. When individuals are appointed to serve in government positions, they take an oath to serve the people and uphold the law. However, if they join a political party immediately after retirement, it sends a message that their loyalty may have been divided all along, and that, while serving in the bureaucracy, they may have worked in favour of a certain section of people in power or from within the power structure. And not only that, their subordinates may have also done the same.

To better understand the phenomenon, let us look at the Gaibandha-5 by-election.

The events surrounding the Gaibandha-5 by-election have raised concerns about the integrity of the country's institutions – particularly the Election Commission (EC). The Chief Election Commissioner expressed his frustration with the widespread irregularities that occurred during the by-election, stating that "elections [were] now out of control." The EC suspended the election and announced that it would take legal action against 134 public officials, including a returning officer, one additional deputy commissioner, one executive magistrate, 126 presiding officers, and five sub-inspectors for their involvement in the irregularities.

Read more

Political dialogues: The long road to nowhere

The reason behind taking such an action is simple: these officials did not act as they were supposed to under oath.

During an election, the civil administration, including the bureaucracy and police, are mandated by law to serve under the direct control of the EC. The EC relies on their integrity to successfully hold a free and fair election. However, during the Gaibandha-5 by-election, the opposite occurred. Officials acted as if they were not under oath and did not provide their allegiance to the Commission, resulting in widespread irregularities.

The fact that public officials acted against their oath raises concerns about who they were serving; the people they were supposed to serve under oath, or the party they are associated with? The aftermath of the by-election sends a negative message to the people, creating doubts about the integrity of these officials and the institutions they serve.

The erosion of institutional integrity is a significant issue. It is leading to a loss of faith in the democratic process of the country. When we lose confidence in the integrity of institutions, we become disillusioned with the democratic process

It is not surprising that the EC has not yet taken visible actions against the public officials. The EC is reliant on the civil administration's cooperation, and without it, the Commission cannot act. Unfortunately, this situation is not unique to Bangladesh, and it is not uncommon for public officials to act against their oath, especially when there is political pressure.

The erosion of institutional integrity is a significant issue. It is leading to a loss of faith in the democratic process of the country. When we lose confidence in the integrity of institutions, we become disillusioned with the democratic process. The second round of the Gaibandha-5 constituency election, held on January 3 with only 35 percent voter turnout, and the EC's shift from "out of control" to "fair, disciplined and peaceful manner", proved that people's participation no longer matters. The ruling party candidate won the by-election.

There was a time when nothing could stop people from exercising their voting rights. Blaming the cold for the lower turnout is perhaps nothing but covering up the weaknesses of the constitutional institutions.

All citizens have a responsibility to vote. Even if the outcome seems predetermined, it is essential to exercise the right to vote and make one's voice heard. It is only by participating in the democratic process that citizens can ensure that their elected officials are held accountable and that institutions remain independent and free from political pressure.

The EC is a constitutional body in Bangladesh. Our constitution has awarded the EC with absolute power to control and direct the civil administration during elections. But this is rendered meaningless if the civil administration does not cooperate with the EC, but ends up doing the opposite.

The events surrounding a few recent parliamentary by-elections and local government elections serve as a warning about the erosion of our institutional integrity. What happened after the local government elections was even worse – several elected representatives, including a freedom fighter, were sacked from their positions on questionable grounds.

Their termination was imminent as they had gone against the candidates nominated by their party, won the election, and faced non-cooperation from the civil administration at the local level. Compared to others, the freedom fighter was fortunate enough to get his position back – thanks to a court ruling declaring his termination illegal.

So, can the EC hold a free and fair national election? Under the prevailing conditions, it is nearly impossible. Why? With only nine months left before the national election, the law ministry is still sitting on the EC's proposal to amend the Representation of the People Order, 1972, the regulating law of the national election. It is mentioned under Article 126 of the constitution that it shall be the duty of all executive authorities to assist the EC in the discharging of its functions.

Can the EC do anything if the executive authorities feel that these are just words written on a piece of paper? It cannot.

Read more

US, India, and the election in Bangladesh

These precedents will continue to have serious implications for the integrity of the bureaucracy and the legitimacy of the government's actions. Bureaucracy, civil administration, and law enforcement agencies need to remain impartial and serve the public interest, rather than aligning themselves with political parties.

Much of Bangladesh's recent economic slump is due to public funds being used to benefit mid- and high-ranking executive officials, further exacerbating inequality. But it has worked well in terms of winning their loyalty and confidence for the ruling party, with overall negative consequences for the people and the economy.

Meer Ahsan Habib is a Hubert Humphrey Fellow at Arizona State University. His Twitter handle is @meeriyadh

Law Minister Anisul Huq today (October 27, 2022) said BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia will not be sent to jail before the next parliamentary election though she has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonments in two corruption cases.

"The government has released her (Khaleda Zia) on two conditions after suspending her jail sentence as per section 401 (1) of the Criminal Code of Procedure (CrPC). The government has no plan to change this decision before the next election," he said while replying to queries from reporters after attending as chief guest at a training programme organised for the sub registrars at Judicial Administration Training Institute in Dhaka.

The government on September 19 extended the suspension of Khaleda Zia's jail sentence for six more months.

Khaleda was freed from jail on March 25, 2020 after the government suspended her jail sentence for six months.

She walked out of jail at a time when the world was hit by Covid-19 pandemic.

Khaleda landed in jail on February 8, 2017, after being sentenced to five years' imprisonment by a special court in Dhaka in the Zia Orphanage Trust graft case. On October 30 the following year, the High Court enhanced her punishment to 10 years after dismissing her appeal in the case.

The former prime minister was convicted by another special court in Dhaka in the Zia Charitable Trust corruption case on October 29, 2018. She was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment by the court.

Today, Law Minister Anisul Huq told reporters that a bill on the amendment of law for holding trial of Jamaat-e-Islami as a war criminal organisation will be placed before Jatiya Sangsad soon.

Replying to another question, Anisul Huq said the government is waiting for the Election Commission's decision about the reported application of Jamaat-e-Islami in the name of a new political party for registration.

The recent image of a Jubo League leader carrying a ballot unit panel of an electronic voting machine (EVM) after snatching it during a by-poll in Chattogram's Boalkhali upazila is the latest addition to a growing list of examples as to why EVMs may not be suitable for conducting a free and fair election in Bangladesh. Neither the assistant presiding officer nor the on-duty members of the law enforcement agencies were able to prevent the mighty Jubo League's union level leader Nirmalendu Dey Sumon from taking the EVM ballot unit panel away.

They were unable to recover it either; Awami League's union President Ratan Chowdhury recovered the panel and returned it to the polling centre.

This incident occurred only a few days after Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kazi Habibul Awal said no one had yet made a sound and objective complaint about the use of EVMs, and the commission had taken a stand in favour of EVMs after conducting several tests. Would the CEC now, at the least, agree that his several tests didn't include robbing of ballot-equivalent parts of their very expensive toy? Clearly he has been oblivious to the arguments made by most of the political parties, except the ruling Awami League and its allies. There's even stronger opposition to the idea of using EVMs among the citizenry and civil society organisations. Have the polling officers not blamed these machines' inefficiency for slowing down the voting process, which left many voters frustrated and contributed to lower turnout?

Read more

Two by-polls, 29 years apart – yet so similar?

While speaking at a workshop in Cox's Bazar on March 11, the CEC, perhaps unwittingly, revealed the Election Commission's obsession with EVMs when he said, "The Election Commission is always in favour of conducting elections using EVMs. We are also working to find innovative modern technology for future elections." His comment that "so far, there has been no objective complaint about rigged elections using EVMs" suggests that he has conveniently forgotten that these EVMs do not have any option for verifying voting records, owing to a design fault of not including the voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) system.

Even though it has abandoned the ambitious plan to hold 50 percent of the next parliamentary election through EVMs due to the country's ongoing financial crisis, the EC still appears to be aiming at using EVMs in quite a significant number of parliamentary seats. On March 15, the commission decided to ask the finance ministry for allocating Tk 1,260 crore (equivalent to more than $1 billion) for repairing 110,000 EVMs. This means each EVM unit will cost Tk 115,000, which is nearly half the purchase price.

It was reported in this daily that each EVM was bought for Tk 235,000, a price 11 times costlier than neighbouring India. When better EVMs (including VVPAT) cost much less, then why does the EC want to repair discredited junk?

Earlier, it was reported in the media that about 40,000 EVMs were beyond repair. When these EVMs were introduced, the EC bought 150,000 EVMs, which means there's none, or very few, usable EVMs available now. Even then, the commission is insistent on having some EVMs in the upcoming parliamentary election.

According to Election Commissioner Anisur Rahman, the Election Commission just wants a pledge that its request would be approved. He told the media, "If we are assured of the required funds, we will go for the work immediately. We can even make half payment to the Machine Tools Factory in this fiscal year and the rest in the next fiscal year." This shows the EC's resolve to go the extra mile to have as many EVMs being used in the next election as possible.

It was reported in this daily that each EVM was bought for Tk 235,000, a price 11 times costlier than neighbouring India. When better EVMs (including VVPAT) cost much less, then why does the EC want to repair discredited junks?

Such an extraordinary emphasis on having elections in some constituencies make us wonder whether there's more to this than meets the eye. It may sound cynical, but questions can be raised whether the intention is to allow the workers of the ruling party to cover their unlawful act of pressing voting buttons for their candidates in the name of assisting the voters. Besides, allowing election officials up to one percent of the voters in a polling booth to cast votes through EVMs in the event of fingerprint mismatch also increases risks of manipulation.

The amount of money that the Election Commission is seeking to repair faulty EVMs is almost double the money allocated for the last parliamentary election – which was also a record in our electoral history. Available data shows that the allocation for the last national assembly election was Tk 700 crore, when the voter number was 104 million. The EC's original plan was to have voting in 150 constituencies through EVMs, and for that it sought Tk 8,711 crore, which would have cost us 14 times more than the previous election. In a way, the ongoing economic predicament has saved us from an exorbitant waste.

Read more

Political dialogues: The long road to nowhere

Under these circumstances, it would be sensible to abandon such a wasteful wish, and concentrate on other crucial preparatory work for the coming election instead. CEC Habibul Awal, in his public statements, has acknowledged that there is a crisis. The reason for the crisis is evident in his words, "We still do not see a consensus among parties regarding the upcoming general election, which is essential. We do not want any political crisis before or during the elections."

It's well understood that the CEC doesn't want to take the role of a mediator, but getting an agreement from the contending parties on the rules of the game beforehand is not someone else's responsibility. 

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His Twitter handle is @ahmedka1

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has fixed November 10 for hearing two leave to appeal petitions filed by BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia challenging the High Court verdict that doubled her five-year jail term in Zia Orphanage Trust corruption case.

Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division Justice Md Rezaul Haque yesterday set the date after Khaleda's lawyer Kayser Kamal prayed for that.

Khaleda filed the leave to appeal petitions with the Appellate Division on March 14, 2019 through his lawyer challenging the HC verdict.

In the petitions, the former prime minister prayed to the apex court to scrap her 10-year sentence.

Khaleda landed in jail on February 8, 2018, after a special court in Dhaka sentenced her to five years in jail in connection with the case.

Subsequently, a petition was filed by the ACC, following which the HC on October 30 increased the punishment to 10 years' imprisonment.

Yesterday, the HC allowed Khaleda to prepare paper books for hearing her another appeal against a lower court judgement that convicted and sentenced her to seven years' imprisonment in Zia Charitable Trust corruption case.

In June this year, many had described the Cumilla City Corporation elections as a "trial run" for the Election Commission's competence in organising polls, especially in terms of using electronic voting machines (EVMs). The results, unfortunately, left much to be desired. Not only did the EC fail to enforce electoral law when a local MP defied its code of conduct, but there was a great deal of controversy around the use of EVMs as well, leading to pandemonium during the declaration of results. The chaos surrounded the fact that there was no mechanism to audit or verify the results, or to question the influence of election officials operating the machines, regardless of how dubious said results might seem.

On what scientific basis did the EC decide on using EVMs? And how does it answer the questions being raised about its independence?

Civil society organisations are continuing to raise such concerns to this day. According to SHUJAN: Citizens for Good Governance, there is a huge lack of transparency surrounding EVMs, especially the audit cards via which election results are collected, and which can be tampered with in the absence of a voter-verifiable paper audit trail. There are also confusions over whether EVM software can be manipulated. Beyond that, there are worries that the provision for EVM overwrite by election officials – where the presiding officer is allowed to use the ballot when there are issues with the EVM registering fingerprints – could also be used to manipulate election results.

Read more

How do we get the goons out of the EVM booths?

These concerns have been repeated by opposition political parties as well. However, we have not seen the EC take any concrete steps to set their minds at ease. In fact, the EC has declared that EVMs will be used in around 150 constituencies in the next general election. This will require the use of around 5 lakh audit cards, meaning it will be impossible to find the time and resources to run forensic analysis on such a huge number of cards to ensure they are not tampered with. On what scientific basis did the EC decide on using EVMs? And how does it answer the questions being raised about its independence?

Read more

EC’s big nothing: From a crowning moment to a humbling experience

The EC has claimed it will do everything to ensure free and fair elections. To this end, it has even held dialogues with opposition parties, but the decision regarding EVMs makes clear that their demands were taken lightly. Over the past week, we have also witnessed BNP rallies in multiple districts being systematically attacked by ruling party men, sometimes with the help of police. Does the EC still believe this is a conducive environment for free elections? And if not, what does it intend to do about it?

It is up to the EC to ensure that the people are able to cast their votes. Against the backdrop of increasing election violence and political repression, choosing a system of voting that has been roundly described by experts as dampening voter turnout is yet another wrong decision from an increasingly long list curated by the EC.