Editorial New Age 12/12/10
Anything but govt's commitment to democratic transparency
GIVEN the rivalry between the two camps of mainstream politics in the country, no Bangladeshi is perhaps surprised at the bitter criticism that the prime minister and president of the ruling Awami League, Sheikh Hasina, has recently launched against Khaleda Zia, a former prime minister and chairperson of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Moreover, no citizen aspiring for democratic transparency of amassing wealth by the politically powerful people like Hasina and Khaleda may have any reason to object to the idea of the former of investigating into the sources of personal wealth of the latter, for such investigations and subsequent public revelation of the findings would definitely help establish democratic accountability of the politicians to the people. If the powerful ones can be made accountable, it is common sense that the others would almost automatically be forced to remain transparent in their financial transactions. It is, therefore, welcome that the prime minister wants the government machinery to investigate into the source of wealth of the former prime minister.
However, one does not have any reason to believe that the prime minister wants to investigate into the source of Khaleda Zia's wealth for establishing democratic accountability of the politicians in general. If she really had, she would not have gotten the corruption charges brought against her, and those of her party colleagues, by the previous government withdrawn by using her executive authority as the prime minister, and that too immediately after taking over of the office in 2009. Her questionable commitment towards financial transparency of the politicians was further evident in the fact that she backed out of an electoral promise that the members of her cabinet and the MPs belonging to her party would make their wealth statement public every year. That she and her party colleagues have not disclosed their wealth statements yet, and that too in clear violation of an electoral pledge, is a primary testimony to the public perception that they have already amassed wealth illegally by using the state machinery which they have been controlling for more than two years now.
The citizens would have been very happy to see that the incumbents, while expressing their desire to investigate into the wealth of the opposition leader, are also serious about the transparency of their own wealth-making process. If they fail to do so, the governmental attempts to investigate into the source of wealth of the opposition leader would naturally be seen as another attempt to harass their political rivals. The incumbents' over-enthusiasm in exaggerating the number and valuation of furniture and household appliances shifted from Khaleda Zia's cantonment house after her eviction has already been considered by many as nothing but a crude partisan attempt to belittle a formidable political rival. Even if the government-sponsored politically-motivated TV broadcast of the furniture and appliances found in the residence of Khaleda Zia, a prime minister for more than two terms, is taken seriously, anyone having the knowledge of the lifestyle of the ruling elite has to conclude that there are many a house of many a rich person in the capital where one can find more furniture of greater financial value at any time.
The democratically-oriented citizens, we believe, have all the reasons to know whether or not the former prime minister's property are ill-gotten, and see them confiscated in favour of the state, if found so. But, equally, the citizens would have no reason to spare the incumbents for amassing wealth illegally. In that case, the people need to get the property of both the politicians investigated by a neutral agency, local or foreign, and thus establish democratic accountability of the top politicians to the people.
__._,_.___
