Reforms vs election: A distracting debate
Recently, a debate in our political arena has been clouding our thinking. "No election before reforms" vs "No reforms if it delays the election" has our political players' attention engaged, distracting them from urgent actions. Exchanges between the respective proponents are now getting shriller and acrimonious. The truth is, we need both and can have both within the time frame of December 2025 or January 2026. People are firm and clear about not missing this unique opportunity to institute vital reforms, but they are also conscious about the complexity of the current situation and would prefer a more stable political and legal scenario.
Those who place the election above reforms undervalue the vital need for the latter. They tend to forget that the introduction of BAKSAL, two military interventions, the binary nature of our politics since the restoration of democracy in 1991, and the authoritarian rule for more than 15 years not only prevented reforms in areas like the judiciary, administration, police, etc, but reversed the process of making governance a public service and not a weapon in the ruler's hand. All our vital institutions need fundamental reforms—and urgently so. Let there be no doubt about it.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Contrarily, those who place reforms above the election do not truly understand the significance of a free and fair election and the absolute necessity of holding it as soon as possible as voters have been cheated of their right in the last three. It is also vital to put the country back on the track of having an elected government and parliament. The national election will restore people's right to choose who should and who should not rule them.It is a citizen's inalienable right to select which party and/or individual will be given the power to lead the country, govern it, spend our tax money, and introduce new policies and plans. Only a free and fair election can ensure it. How can we forget that, from the mountain of misgovernance by Sheikh Hasina, what triggered public anger the most was her fraudulent elections. Now, due to the students' popularity and Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus's wide acceptance, people have decided to wait to exercise their right to elect. But that wait is time-bound.
What elections also do is bring about the accountability of those who are placed in power and positions of decision-making. "Accountability" is perhaps the most ignored and undervalued word in our country's governance. Our government officials, who get all their perks and facilities and, most importantly, salary from our tax money, face no accountability. Our police, intelligence agencies and security apparatus have all the power to oppress the public, but the public has no right to ask if they are even remotely performing their tasks honestly and in line with the law. In every profession and sector, there are honourable exceptions whom we praise for being honest in spite of the system. But the overall system is rotten to the core.
How can we forget that, from the mountain of misgovernance by Sheikh Hasina, what triggered public anger the most was her fraudulent elections. Now, due to the students' popularity and Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus's wide acceptance, people have decided to wait to exercise their right to elect. But that wait is time-bound.
Free and fair elections are the only effective mechanism to make our political leaders accountable. It can be said that it did not work effectively in the past. With the proposed reforms instituted, it will be different in the future.
The interim government deserves kudos for setting up reform commissions in the most vital areas well in time. Four of them have already delivered their recommendations, while two others are expected soon. Some important committees have also shared their findings. What awaits us is the dialogue with political parties that the chief adviser has already planned. Recommendations on vital issues like the constitution, Election Commission, police and Anti-Corruption Commission are already in the public domain. All of them now await widespread discussion, which we think should start immediately.
However, when a national dialogue should be starting in earnest, the "reforms vs election" controversy has reemerged, and this time, unfortunately, in a tone that we should and need to avoid. The BNP's latest decision to launch a movement may lead to counter-movements, which may bring many factions to the streets. When things seem to be falling into place, such actions seem unnecessary.
The recent remark by BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakrul Islam Alamgir about the interim government—that if it loses its neutrality, we must have a new one to conduct the election—took us all by surprise. The reasons he cited need to be examined, but we think the conclusion he made was a bit premature.
Mirza Fakrul's comments took a dramatic turn when Adviser Nahid Islam speculated as to whether or not BNP was making an indirect call for bringing back an army-backed government to hold the election, modelled after 1/11.
This comment, we think, took the discussion towards a confrontational direction. Instead of a greater understanding, attributing motives to the BNP, which was neither fair nor justified, has now led to a distance between the students and the BNP, which is, as Adviser Dr Asif Nazrul observed, "undesirable." If anybody, it was the BNP that suffered the most during 1/11. Given its experience, BNP would be the last political party to want the return of an army-backed caretaker government.
Vital and urgently necessary reform proposals are now in place. We urge all to begin serious discussions on them. Let's start with the one that has a built-in consensus: police reform. We want the police to be permanently changed from being an extension of the ruling party's oppressive mechanism to an institution that upholds law and order for the benefit of the people. As a public institution, the police must represent justice, not oppression. Many of the reform suggestions are timely, useful, and urgently needed. The reform process can easily start with the police and can be seen as an example for the other reforms to follow.
As for the judiciary (what we have been able to learn from media reports; the formal presentation of its report is yet to come) the idea of decentralising the High Court benches is a most timely one. The dictum "Justice delayed is justice denied" is a painful reality for most citizens who live outside Dhaka. Travel, stay, food and the high cost of lawyers put the higher judiciary literally out of reach for most people. Even when they make the effort, the procedural maze and the avoidable but casually imposed delays make our ordinary citizens puppets in the hands of the law, which is well exemplified by the 5.77 lakh cases pending at the court. Reported suggestions about appointments, work accountability, financial transparency of the judges and separate administration, supervision, etc will make the proposals most relevant. If there is a place where anti-discrimination needs implementation, it is here.
Public administration reforms are also an urgent need for us. Our administration never served the people but the ruling party of the day, and of course themselves. There are honest officials, but they are a small minority. Most are corrupt, inefficient and totally without accountability and monitoring. Reforms here would be most resisted, and hence must be pursued with determination.
Election reforms are of immediate concern and must be implemented fastest, compared to others.
The above examples—only a small part of the whole process—show how important the reform proposals are and how seriously and diligently we must pursue them.
As we pointed out earlier, we have almost a year in hand. If we use this time with efficiency, dedication, and seriousness, and refrain from getting embroiled in unnecessary issues, we can have both reforms and the election within the desired time frame, about which there is a widespread agreement.
We are aware that some sections will gain with an early election and others will not. It cannot be counted out that arguments of both the sides could also be based on these perceived benefits. But we have to put public interest above everything else. We cannot lose this opportunity and the momentum to reshape our future on the basis of democracy, equality, tolerance, and general prosperity.
We strongly urge all concerned not to further dig into this debate and concentrate fully on achieving both the reforms and the election, which will serve our national interest most effectively. We should set aside our differences and assist the interim government to move forward with speed and clarity to implement this duel agenda.
Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
Comments