Government vs. Awami League and Reverting to '72 Constitution
As distances grow between the ministers-MPs and the leaders at the grassroots, the government and its party fight themselves at odds; it is also in a dilemma over reverting to the '71 Constitution
by ANWAR PARVEZ HALIM
A distance is steadily growing between the ministers and MPs of Awami League and the party's leaders, workers and supporters at the grassroots level. As a result, they are virtually detached from the people. If the government has any successes, it is not trickling down to the people. Despite Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's strong and committed leadership, the people are being deprived from enjoying the fruits of the government's efforts simply due to the controversial activities of a handful of ministers and MPs. Yet it is the entire Awami League that is having to bear the responsibility of this irresponsible bunch. This allegations are being made by the leaders and workers of the ruling party itself. If fact, they have complained directly to party President Sheikh Hasina about the matter.
An extended meeting of Awami League's working committee was held on July 16. The presidents, general secretaries, convenors and joint convenors of the party's 73 organisational districts were invited to join. The meeting was chaired by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. She listened attentively to the grievances of the grassroots leaders. Sources attending the meet say that, having the opportunity to address the Prime Minister directly, they emptied their hearts and came up with scathing criticism against the ministers and MPs. They went as far as to detail various instances of corruption and irregularities carried out by the ministers and MPs. The discussions at the meeting focused on irregularities pertaining to Test Relief, Food for Work and other development programmes, Chhatra League's activities, the party workers being distanced, trial of the war criminals, etc.
It was understood from the statements made by the delegates at the meeting that in most cases the ministers and MPs paid no heed to the local leaders and workers. They kept them away from the development activities. Instead, these ministers and MPs created a syndicate with their own friends and relations and used this syndicate for their own interests. They were not bothered in implementing the election committeemen's. They were directly and indirectly involved in corruption and the smear was coming upon the government.
Upon coming to power, the Prime Minister has emphasised the need to fulfill the party's election commitments. She had time and again warned against crime and corruption. But, according to the grassroots voice, the ministers and MPs do not seem to have followed her instructions.
At the extended meeting, the Prime Minister did not spare the ministers and MPs in her address. But, analysts, say, the problem is that the Prime Minister stands alone in managing the affairs. She is the all-in-all and the cabinet cannot catch up with her pace of work. The main reason that they lag behind is their lack of experience and lack of farsightedness. The Prime Minister has to take all the decisions. But the problem lies in the conduit. The conduit to take the results of the PM's decisions to the doorsteps of the people is corrupt. It lacks in sincerity. The PM forges ahead with digital speed, but her colleagues in the cabinet inch along at an analog pace.
Analysts comment, good governance calls for good teamwork. No matter how good a decision Sheikh Hasina may take, how skillful she is at her job, it is simply not feasible for her to manage things alone. As a result, in just a matter of one and a half years a distance has grown between the government and the ruling party. The distance between the ministers and the MPs, between the MPs and the leaders, between the leaders and the party workers -- if this distances continues to grow it can only spell disaster for the government. Its popularity will plunge. Yet it still has three and a half more years to go. That is why the grassroots leaders and workers have appealed to the Prime Minister to rein in her ministers and MPs.
Following the sentiments of the field level leaders and workers, Minister for Local Government Syed Ashraful Islam said, "The Prime Minister is not a 'maharani' that she will stay in power forever." "So," he warned the ministers and MPs, "It would be wise to stay away from irregularities and corruption."
Commenting about this growing distance within the ruling set-up, a central leader of Awami League says, "Another than a few, most of these ministers and MPs have never taken to the streets as part of any movement. They have no idea of Awami League's ideology and politics. They do not know their own constituencies well, know nothing about the dedicated leaders and workers of their areas. They simply create their own pocket committees and syndicates and cling on to power. This is not Awami League's politics or ideology. The real leaders are being sidestepped because of them. Those who were repressed, tortured and faced cases during the last government are not being evaluated properly now. They are naturally frustrated. They are becoming inactive. This is harming the party, the government and, naturally, Sheikh Hasina."
At the working council meeting in Gono Bhaban, a district leader brought Chhatra League's unruly activities to the PM's attention. He said that there were rumours that Shibir activists had infiltrated Chhatra League. Sheikh Hasina replied that she too had information that Shibir had entered Chhatra League.
In this regard, a former Chhatra League leader, presently a member of the party's central committee, tells PROBE, "This is no new complaint. If the PM had such information, why hasn't she acted upon it? Who are the one's who inducted Shibir into Chhatra League? They are still active. Why is the PM silent? Are the Chhatra League godfathers stronger than the government? Why can't their criminal activities be stopped? What is the problem?"
Sheikh Hasina is rigid in her stand, she does what she says unwaveringly. Critics might eye this critically, but well-wishers feel this is a positive trait. She is extremely stern when it comes to national matters and also her opposition. She needs to adopt this unflinchingly stern stand now in the case of her ministers, MPs and Chhatra League. Awami League well-wishers feel this is essential if the election commitments are to be kept and also for the sake of future politics.
Top priority: Reverting to the '72 Constitution
After the commencement of the war crime trial process, reverting to the 1972 Constitution features next on the government's priority list.
At the recent meeting in Gono Bhaban, the Prime Minister said, "The Fifth Amendment will be annulled and the Constitution will be amended according to the Supreme Court verdict. An all-party committee will be formed for this purpose."
However, the head of the parliamentary committee for judicial affairs Suranjit Sengupta is not in favour of an all-party committee for this purpose. His stand is a reflection of the party's stand. This is realistic too. Jamaat-e-Islami won't be included in this committee, according to government decision. And with the amount of repression and pressure being laid upon BNP at present, there is very little likelihood of their joining the committee either. BNP is the largest opposition political party of the country and they have already opposed reverting to the 1972 Constitution. They say that if the 1972 Constitution is revived, this government won't be able to stay in power. There is no doubt that this issue is going to spark of serious controversy.
It is not only the political opposition, but legal experts and veteran politicians also maintain that the Constitution of 1972 cannot be revived in its entirety. The four basic premises of socialism, democracy, secularism and Bengali nationalism were reflected throughout the Constitution. But with repeated amendments, the present Constitution is now far removed from that. So critics see a lot of conflict in reverting to the '72 Constitution. Their points are:
i. During President Zia's rule, "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" was added to the Constitution and President Ershad added Islam as the state religion. Will the people accept these terms being withdrawn? It is being said that "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" will remain intact, but then what of secularism? Will persons of other religions begin reading the Constitution with the utterance of these words?
ii. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was brought about during the rule of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. If one is to revert to the '72 Constitution, then this too has to be annulled. But it was this amendment that made Sheikh Mujib the Father of the Nation. Will Awami League allow the term "Father of the Nation" to be erased from the Constitution?
iii. By introducing the term "Bangladeshi nationalism" in the Constitution, President Ziaur Rahman gave a new identity to the citizens. The India government at the time is said to have supported this because it delineated between the Bengalis of West Bengal and those of Bangladesh. India has always been wary of moves to unite the two Bengals to form a separate Bengali nation. Those apprehensions persist and even though Bangladesh's relations with India are at a zenith right now, will India support a reversal to "Bengali nationalism" of the '72 Constitution?
iv. In the still unipolar world, Bangladesh cannot ignore international political paradigms. Bangladesh is very much with the US' War on Terror. If the '72 Constitution is reinstated, all religion-based political parties will have to be prohibited (see box). Observers fear this will give rise to Islamic militancy. Will the US and the rest of the western world approve? Will the Muslim majority of Bangladesh accept this with no protest whatsoever?
http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=6166
__._,_.___
