PM continues to build confidence, BNP corrodes it

Yes, it is still too early to provide a conclusive assessment of BNP’s performance both as a government and as a ruling party. But it is definitely not too early to make fact-based predictions about the direction in which it is going. Prime Minister Tarique Rahman continues to give the right message, but early signs from the party are worrisome, especially as regards its internal discipline, its ability to check corruption and nepotism at higher levels—such as advantages being taken by family members of leaders and ministers (in some cases)—and, finally, its handling of the opposition.

The first question that needs to be asked is: Is the government listening to the people’s voices? To answer that, we need to know whether the government and the ruling party have any credible mechanism through which authentic public opinion will reach them, especially the centre of power. Experience shows that both official and party channels never worked because they never brought unpleasant news to the top. They did not say anything that displeased the boss. Has that culture changed? We hope it has. But current indications appear to suggest otherwise.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The media could play a vital role. However, except for a few, the media itself is divided along political lines, which is neither healthy for the media itself nor helpful to those in power. So far, BNP has centrally followed a policy of non-interference in the media, for which we laud the government.

BNP has recently observed its 48th founding anniversary, to mark which the party chairman and PM said they want to “repay people’s love through accountable governance.” If he can deliver this one result, the people will always remain grateful to him.

But what are the early signs of an “accountable” government? The first shock that people absorbed was the partisanship in filling up the levers of power in the government: from resurrecting retired bureaucrats and police officers and placing them at vital points, to filling universities, professional bodies, institutions, etc. with party loyalists, where merit, experience, and honesty had little role. They have all been brought into the power structure not necessarily because they constitute the best available team to serve the people—and the government—but because they belong to the ruling party and needed to be rewarded for their loyalty during the Sheikh Hasina days.

The latest appointments of local government administrators are all closely linked with BNP. This has created suspicion among the opposition, and Jamaat leaders have already demanded that the Election Commission bar these appointed administrators from being involved in the coming local government polls.

We would have easily brushed aside the opposition’s demand but for the fact that there is substantial ground for it. Partisan appointments at most levels, and especially at the lower tiers, are making governance far from accountable. The PM should not brush aside this observation.

On the question of accountable governance, another fact needs to be highlighted. How have the portfolios been distributed? Has ministers’ expertise been considered when allocating ministries? We had earlier suggested that if elected representatives cannot always be expected to have relevant expertise, then at least provide them with some sort of in-depth briefing (the word “training” will not be appreciated) so that they understand the challenges and responsibilities they have been entrusted with. This matter should not be taken lightly, as governance, we repeat, is fundamentally a science and far more complicated than ever before.

Then there are several ministries that have a minister, a minister of state, and a special adviser attached to one or more ministries reporting directly to the top. Perhaps the PM’s intention was to make them work as a team. However, in reality, they often do not. Sometimes they work as rivals. This puts the bureaucracy in a bind over whom to report to or seek directions from. This reality has created a dangerous opening for influence-peddling, cronyism, and corruption.

On the political front, BNP appears to be gradually burying itself in a self-generated narrative and political outlook that is delinking it from hard reality. There is a widespread feeling that BNP does not treat the July Charter with the seriousness and depth it deserves and will not go for its implementation in areas that curtail the power of the executive branch, especially that of the PM.

We must remember that our constitution gives virtually unlimited power to the office and person of the PM. The institutional checks on that power are extremely weak. Whatever supervisory power exists within parliament and its standing committees gets neutralised because of the dominance of MPs from the ruling party. In the past, the culture of walkouts, boycotts, and, finally, resignations by opposition MPs added, ironically, to the unquestioned power enjoyed by the leader of the House as, without the opposition, the ruling party did whatever it wanted.

One of the central demands of the July charter is to curtail the constitutional power of the PM and make him more answerable to parliament. The suggestion to place some powers in the hands of the president springs from that spirit. The charter contains many important reform measures that, if properly implemented, could greatly contribute to the democratisation of our power structure.

The interim government issued 133 ordinances, of which 113, mostly dealing with routine matters, were ratified by the 13th parliament, while the remaining 20 were either repealed or allowed to lapse. The lapsed ordinances dealt with the real reforms, including provisions relating to an independent judiciary, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Information Commission, etc. They were aimed at reducing the power of the executive, among other issues. The justification for redrafting them, as stated, was that the ruling party wanted to make them more effective.

We now have the final product in the case of two bills relating to enforced disappearances and the NHRC, expected to be enacted into law very soon. If compared with the charter and the relevant ordinances issued by the interim government, these proposed laws give us a glimpse into the mindset of BNP as to how far it is willing to go to establish “accountable governance.” The conclusion is far less satisfactory than what people have expected. Previously, the NHRC used to be called a “toothless tiger”. The new NHRC, in light of the bill, cannot even be called that—maybe a “toothless cat or mouse”. A similar assessment may also be appropriate in the case of the bill on enforced disappearances.

These two bills force us to think that BNP has either not learnt from the past or is unwilling to subject itself to restraints and accountability, which is the core demand of the charter. A simple answer to why Sheikh Hasina failed—in addition to many other causes—is that she did not allow “independent” institutions to exist that could have questioned her and her government.

If the PM wants to fulfil his promise of “accountable governance,” then he must allow the emergence of institutions that are independent enough to hold the government accountable. Published in 2012, the book Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson has served as a guide to political leaders and policymakers in different countries, especially developing ones. A crucial finding of that book is that countries that focus on building institutions are better able to sustain their development. Without strong institutions, countries may show progress in the short term, but their achievements do not last.

This is the single most important lesson for us: we must build institutions that carry the nation’s goals beyond personalities. Is BNP ready to learn it?

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

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.