Caretaker government
A temporary government that is in
charge of a country until a new government is elected is known as caretaker
government.
History
A caretaker government was first introduced in
1990 when three party alliances jointly made a demand for it. After the forced
resignation of General Ershad, the three alliances nominated Chief Justice
Shahbuddin Ahmed as the Chief Advisor. A Caretaker government is headed by a Chief Adviser who enjoys the same power as the
regular prime minister of the country except defense matters. The Advisors
function as Ministers. Since 1996, the Caretaker government has held the
elections of 1996, 2001 and 2008. Although the first caretaker government was
intended to help the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, this system
was constitutionalized in 1996 by the Sixth Parliament dominated by Bangladesh Nationalist Party, yielding
to boycotting opposition pressure.
In Bangladesh Bangladesh
Caretaker Government is very popular in Bangladesh Pakistan and Greece
Caretaker system can still
be legal
A restoration by parliament of the nullified constitutional
provision relating to the caretaker government system will be legal since the
Supreme Court has said the system can be kept in place for two more terms.
The Supreme Court's full verdict on the constitution's 13th
amendment case may offer a guideline explaining the way in which the caretaker
government system can be used for a specified period, says a source close to
former chief justice ABM Khairul Haque. Justice Khairul Haque, it may be noted,
is now in the process of writing the full judgement.
Parliament, if it wishes, may reintroduce the now defunct model
of the caretaker government system or introduce a new model of it by amending
the constitution. The act will be aimed at holding two more parliamentary
elections under the caretaker government system, as the ex-chief justice may
explain in the full verdict.
The source said Justice Khairul Haque, who led the Appellate
Division into declaring the provision for a caretaker government system
unconstitutional and void on May 10 last year, may explain in detail the three
"age-old principles" cited in the short order with regard to holding
two more national polls under the lapsed caretaker government system.
The three principles are the following: necessity makes it
lawful, safety of the people, and security of the state are the supreme law.
The verdict, however, triggered widespread controversy as many
jurists and politicians dubbed it self-contradictory. They questioned how the
next two parliamentary elections could be held under an “illegal” system. Many
feared the verdict would deepen the political crisis over the holding of the
next parliamentary election.
The Awami League-led government did not wait to get the copy of
the full verdict. On June 30 last year it swiftly scrapped the caretaker
government system through amending the constitution. In its opinion, an
"illegal system cannot be kept in the constitution".
In the brief verdict released immediately after the judgment,
the apex court, however, said the system might be retained for holding two more
parliamentary elections on the three age-old principles.
The source said the hurried abolition of the caretaker
government system had disappointed the former chief justice and at one stage he
even declined to write the full verdict.
He, however, changed his mind, considering the significance of
the verdict. He will finish writing the verdict soon, the source said.
The latest development has been communicated to the Appellate
Division, according to the source.
Asked what would happen if an individual challenged the legality
of the reintroduced caretaker government system, the source argued that the
apex court should not entertain such petitions as it has already permitted the
system to be used for two more terms.
The source said the full verdict would also suggest making the
Election Commission stronger.
Some legal experts still hope the full verdict, once released,
may open a window to restoring the caretaker government system in order to
minimise growing public fears of possible political unrest ahead of the next
electoral exercise.
A week after the 13th amendment verdict, Justice Khairul Haque
on his last day in office as chief justice on May 17 last year, told The Daily
Star that there was nothing confusing or contradictory in the verdict.
“We have tried to clear the legal position on this issue in
detail in our verdict. You can understand everything if you read the short
order [of the verdict] properly,” Justice Khairul told reporters.
In response to a query as to whether the caretaker government
system would remain in place following the verdict, he said, “We have given
this verdict considering all legal aspects, the country and its people and the
existing situation.”
Soon after the court's verdict, politics took a new turn over
the caretaker government system. The caretaker formula was introduced in 1996
after vigorous street agitation in its favour by the now-governing Awami
League. Meanwhile, the parliamentary special committee on constitutional
amendments drafted proposals for keeping the provision of the caretaker
government system by bringing about some changes in the system. But Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina, who is also chief of the ruling Awami League, did not
agree with the special committee's proposals. Parliament on June 30 abolished
the system by passing the 15th amendment to the constitution.
The main opposition BNP and its like-minded parties have
strongly opposed the move, making it known that they will not take part in the
next parliamentary elections, to be held in early 2014, if they are not held
under a caretaker government.
Necessary
or unnecessary Bangladesh
need caretaker government any longer
Our long-cherished dream is to have
competent and honest democratic governments in succession with smooth
transition and transfer of power. To ensure the aforementioned, all the
elections must be fair and impartial under a truly independent Election
Commission (EC), composed of non-partisan, capable and bold individuals. The
politicians must have a mindset to accept the verdict of the people gracefully.
The losing parties must accept defeat in true democratic spirit. While in the opposition, they must
play a constructive role by agreeing on common national issues and disagreeing
on issues in the wrong track to seek a middle ground. At the same time, the
incumbent governing party/parties must be tolerant and respectful to the
opposing views and the political opponents (they are not enemies). For sound
functional democracy, this is a must.
The businesses in the parliament must be
conducted in a congenial and democratic atmosphere allowing the opposition to
play its due role. Discussions/debates must take place on important issues,
relevant to vital national interests. All parties must refrain from personal
attacks to show civility in the parliament. Unfortunately, our politicians
remain far from the above. In many cases, their actions are self-serving and
ill-motivated. This is very much unexpected of them. Knowingly, they promise a
lot that they cannot deliver. In the process, the common people feel cheated by
them. People did not vote for the government to have elected king or queen with
all powers concentrated in a single hand. That’s what we have been observing
for the last 40 years since independence. We are currently in a big political
mess. This was not created overnight. Blames go all around for creation of this
mess over time.
To give benefit of doubt, the head of
the government might have all good intentions and wonderful ideas with no clues
of how to implement them. Implementation is impossible being closely surrounded
by a large number of bad elements. These elements have only one goal to amass
wealth using the head as shield. These sycophants are no friends. They will go
to any length to please the heads and help them to perpetuate their undeserving
family legacies in Bangladesh
The caretaker government established in
1990 and enshrined in the constitution in 1996 is the product of the
politicians’ mutual disrespect, distrust and disagreement. To me, this is an
undemocratic means to save democracy. Its constitutionality is also in
question. Truly, this is a self-inflicted insult on politicians themselves. To
think carefully, they should be ashamed of themselves for unruly and childish behaviors
requiring adult supervision of the unelected caretaker government at least for
90 days. They need to grow and mature, personally, professionally and
politically. No other country in the world has such a strange creature.
Perhaps, this is what they could come up
with as a solution in 1990 to get rid of the cancerous military rule in public
or in disguise. Some self-branded political genius might have been tempted to
term it as military democracy. How can military rule and democracy go together
as oil and water cannot mix together? In its initial stages, the practice of
democracy may be chaotic and messy. But there is no better alternative. The
practice must continue in good faith to settle finally on a steady democratic
path.
How can an undemocratic means, such as,
caretaker government can save democracy in the long run? It could be an
undesired short-term fix, but should not be a long-term cure for democracy.
Unfortunately, still after 20 years some prominent lawyers of the Supreme Court
have to argue in its favor, because the politicians cannot yet ensure free and
fair elections in all sincerities. There are some merits in this argument,
given the prevailing poisonous political climate.
Some even view it as a deterrent to
martial law. If politicians by their own imprudence make it inevitable, who can
stop it? But the question remains how long has the nation to wait to see our
politicians grow up as responsible adults? How long does the nation have to
live with such strange creature? They created it and they don’t like it either.
To me, this seems to be something that we cannot live with and live without for
a foreseeable future. But this must come to an end in a civilized society. The question
is when? To many minds, time is not ripe yet. The politicians must bear the
blames for such long delay.
In brief, people know the excesses of
the immediate past military-backed and military-supported caretaker government
that ruled the country under national emergency during 2007 and 2008 beyond the
designated term for 90 days and going much beyond its only mandate to hold
national election. Repeat of its background history in this write-up is not
worth the ink and paper. The politicians brought a calamity for themselves. The
nation hoped that they learned their lessons. Current events do not show that
they have learned anything to correct themselves. The same old things are in
play, again. They play foul since they have no respect for the rules of the
game. They see nothing wrong in corruption as if this is their public
participation in public money.
As stated at the very beginning, a truly
independent and strengthened Election Commission (EC) is a must for free and
fair elections to save democracy. The EC must be composed of non-partisan,
capable and bold members. To have such EC what the nation needs at the moment
is a political consensus across the board. If politicians care for the country,
the people and, the democracy, reaching such consensus should not be difficult
at all. What is lacking is their true and moral commitment for the country.
They speak as champions of democracy for the country, but they do not practice
democracy within their own parties. They must practice democracy within their respective
party before they preach. Democracy in Bangladesh Bangladesh
Caretaker government: Defending the
indefensible
Any one defending the
military-backed caretaker government (CTG) may be asking for crucifixion by a
democratically elected government. I believe, I’ve the audacity to take that
risk – even if the crucifiers could be somewhat irrational.
The political culture in most
democracies – and in most cases, even in America
– is not to recognise the good works and successes of the prior opposition
government with Bangladesh
epitomising that mindset in all its vituperative dimensions. The government and
its all-encompassing political machinery claim all accomplishments as being
solely due to the new party in power. For example, several days ago, Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina claimed that her government has dented poverty reduction
by 10 percent –as if there was no roll over effect from the past. The political
braggadocios in all democracies display this demeanour as if winning next
election is enshrined in parroting an unrelenting demonisation of the past governments.
Last week I was watching Hasina
demonising the CTG — especially noticeable was her scolding of the Advisers.
She specifically said that the highly intellectual and educated group of
Advisers had destroyed every institution in the country during their two years
in office. That’s a serious indictment and hence merits some postmortem to
accept or reject the assertions.
Everyone except the BNP and
Jamaat politicians would agree that the CTG inherited an Augean stable left
over by the four party alliances (FPA) government. It was widely claimed that
the emergency power fortified CTG and it may have averted a civil war like
spectres being set in motion surrounding the national election prior to
1/11/2007. That may precisely be the reason the AL- led opposition welcomed and
embraced CTG and enthusiastically attended its installation under the much
controversial then President Iazuddin Ahmed. On the other hand, the just out of
office Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and her cronies abstained from the inauguration
event. Obviously, the enthusiastic AL-led opposition had absolutely no clue at
the time what the military-backed CTG was up to. Of course, politicians had
wanted CTG to hold the January 2007 ‘postponed election’ within 90 days of
their inauguration as sanctioned by the constitution. However, could any
government realistically hold a free and fair election under a cascading riot
like conditions within 90 days? CTG had to deal with a much fabricated and
defraud voter list, grossly politicised election commission (EC) including
countrywide election officials, civil and police administration and so on – you
name it. There were hardly any institutions that were functioning properly with
corruptions and derelictions of duties becoming the norm in every organ of the
government. How could we forget all these today?
To the extent feasible, CTG
filleted the politicisation of the EC at all levels and reconstituted it, which
in turn —with the help of the army — produced an almost surreal voter list with
photo ID – one that is still a far cry for most advanced democracies including
the USA .
Many other institutions such as
the Public Service Commission, Anti-corruption Commission, University Grants
Commission, and the National Board of Revenue –just to name the few important
ones —were among those that got reformed and reconstituted with specific
qualified and politically nonpartisan people.
Probably the most significant
step taken by CTG is separating the judiciary which was under review and delay
for years under both AL
and BNP administrations. CTG withstood and held its ground against all the
pressures and protests from the civil administration. How could we forget all
these today?
As many of us remember, the only
institutions that were put on hold included acrimonious and destructive culture
of politics and some media freedom. However, those were done for compelling
reasons – however unjustifiable they may be in today’s context. Looking back, I
could not find any other institution that was deliberately harmed by CTG in any
form or shape.
Thus the blanket accusations of
destroying all institutions by CTG have little or no basis. What is
unacceptable though is that on a given day Hasina lambastes the FPA for looting
the country’s exchequer and destroying the legal and administrative
institutions through mismanagement and polarisation and then demonise CTG
Advisers –as if they usurped power only to complete the unfinished debilitation
of the country steered by Khaleda- Nizami regime.
No one would deny that CTG
overstepped its boundary in exercising emergency powers. Chasing politicians
and putting them through the brutalities of remand and castigating them in
prison violating their constitutional right to bails were some of the excesses
made by CTG. Thousands of citizens –rightly or wrongly were arrested and
imprisoned without charges and trials. All these are indefensible human rights
violations. Yes, we did not forget those.
In a 2 June 2008 court appearance
to defend corruption charges, Khaleda Zia charges that the events of 1/11 were
fabricated to realise the ambitions of a few people. She claimed that her two
sons were falsely charged with corruption to malign and destroy the family. She
further alleged that false corruption cases were filed against popular
politicians only to disqualify them from contesting the elections.
FPA called for a joint movement
against CTG. AL –led opposition snubbed it – unwilling to “not go back” to the
pre-1/11 politics of “hate and hurt”. That may be another indication that CTG’s
activities were mixed in being not all bad and in most cases, hospitable to the
country’s democracy and good governance. No wonder, the current parliament has
enacted over 46 Presidential Ordinances into law with proper debate and
deliberations – although an equal numbers were voted down. How can we forget
all these today?
Understandably, CTG ambitiously
undertook more jobs than it could handle. But it seems fair to say that
whatever amount of the Augean stable it decontaminated they undeniably helped
to pave a smooth takeover of AL-led government.
CTG that emerged in 2007
fortified with emergency power did both good and bad. It must be scrutinized
and discredited for the bad and it must also be recognized for the good it did
— like it or not.
The country had hoped that the
post 1/11 initiatives for rule of law and institutional reforms would bring
about a new political milieu. Unfortunately, all indications from the ongoing
political unrests underscore the contrary — the old culture of “demand, threat
and ultimatum” and the culture of “leader glorification” is as robust and
vibrant as it ever was.
There’s no alternative to
democracy and governance by an elected government. Therefore, the pandemonium
and pre-election bedlam that brought the nation to the brink of a civil war —
averted at the last moment by imposition of the 1/11 state of emergency — must
never creep in. That one was blamed all on FPA and God forbid, if anything like
that repeats before the next elections it will equally be blamed on AL led 14 party alliances
–believe it or not.
Demand for
caretaker government system in Bangladesh
The cancellation of the caretaker
government system, introduced in 1996 by the then BNP-led government, has now
triggered stiff protests from the BNP-led opposition. They have been demanding
restoration of the caretaker government system and reiterating that they will
not participate in parliamentary elections under the Awami League (AL) - led
government, alleging that the incumbent will utilize government machinery and
manipulate the poll in its own favour.
To know how the idea of caretaker government system came
into being one has to look back in history.
After overthrow of General HM Ershad’s military regime inBangladesh in
1990 through mass upsurge, there was instability and complete chaos in the
country with no formal government in position. So all the leading political
leaders, eminent personalities and civil society activists unanimously reached
an understanding over instituting an acceptable and credible mechanism to hold
parliamentary elections under supervision of a caretaker government in order to
install a democratic government in the country and put an end to the menace of
frequent military take-over for ever.
After overthrow of General HM Ershad’s military regime in
The prevalent chaotic situation in those days warranted such
a temporary system of governance to ensure a smooth and peaceful transition
from military rule to democracy.
The first election
under this interim arrangement was held in 1991.
But now, when democracy is in the process of taking firm roots in the country, doesBangladesh
really need a caretaker government to oversee parliamentary elections? 41 years
have already passed since its emergence as a democratic country. Do the
political leaders even now require supervision of an un-elected caretaker
government for conducting elections and handing over power to the elected
regime? Have they not grown and matured enough, personally, professionally and
politically even now? No other country in the world has such a strange
mechanism of governance for conducting elections.
Initially warranted by exigencies of circumstances this quick-fix solution called caretaker system was conceived as a short term solution to ensure smooth transition to democracy. This is basically an undemocratic system and can not by any means be a long-term cure for democracy.
Whenever general elections are held in a democratic country, there are neutral election observers, including impressive arrays of foreign teams, to oversee the election process. Interestingly, their reports carry a great deal of weight in determining whether there were irregularities and electoral fraud or malpractices and find out if the voting was conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner. Depending on reports of the neutral observers, election results gain credibility or otherwise. The new government is formed on the basis of election results endorsed by the neutral observers.
The new government is then sworn in for a fixed period when they have total power and full jurisdiction under all the laws of the land and subject to the rules and regulations set for conducting the state business. And they do so - good, bad or indifferent - whatever may be the opinion of the people in general and the parties in opposition, the incumbent government holds sway over the state apparatus on the pledge to do their mandated jobs.
How can the same government, whose coming to power is deemed constitutional and lawful and who had all the trust and expectations of the people to deliver, all of a sudden become untrustworthy and unfit to undertake what may be called its final lawful act, that is to arrange and hold the general elections in the country.
Recent months have witnessed a resurgence of interest in Caretaker government system after the country’s Supreme Court in a historical verdict dispensed with this undemocratic system. Strangely enough, the only argument proffered in this regard is that the incumbent government cannot be trusted to be neutral to ensure free and fair elections. The demand for caretaker government is the product of politicians’ mutual disrespect, distrust and disagreement.
It is not caretaker government but a truly independent and strong Election Commission (EC) that is a pre-requisite for free and fair elections to save democracy. The EC must be composed of non-partisan, capable and bold members. To have such an EC what the country needs is a political consensus across the board. If politicians care for the country, its people and democracy, reaching such consensus would not be difficult at all. What seems to be lacking is their true and moral commitment for the country.
Apart from an independent EC responsible for all aspects of conducting the elections in a free and fair manner, there are law courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court as well. There are many neutral watchdogs and above all, there is a vast, vibrant and vigorous media, both electronic and print. Moreover, can the government of any developing country afford to risk its credibility before international community and donor agencies by resorting to electoral fraud to hold on to power?
Nowhere else in the world such a strange mechanism as caretaker government system exists. In the aftermath of cancellation of the provision for caretaker government system by the Supreme Court, the demand for its restoration seems not only ridiculous but also ill-motivated.Bangladesh has completed 41 years
of state existence and democracy in the country is no longer in the same
nascent stage as it was after the fall of General Ershad’s military rule.
Moreover, is there any guarantee that after its restoration, this solution to a
perceived problem would not itself become a more vicious one and jeopardize
democracy in the country?
This is exactly what happened inBangladesh in January 2007 when an
Army- backed dispensation seized power under the cover of a caretaker
government with an assurance to hold parliamentary elections within the
stipulated 90 day period. But in reality, in the name of caretaker government, Bangladesh
continued to remain under de-facto Army rule for two long years. During this
period, democracy in Bangladesh
was a casualty. The so-called caretaker government sought to perpetuate
indirect military rule in Bangladesh
on the pattern of Pakistan
where democracy is basically a façade for Army rule.
After toying with several ideas to perpetuate indirect Army rule in the country this so-called caretaker government finally yielded to intense international pressure brought upon it for restoration of democracy. Finally it found no option but to hold parliamentary elections for handing over power to a democratically elected regime.
Elections held so far under the Awami League led government since it assumed office in 2009 have been free, fair and impartial. There were no allegations or reports of any electoral malpractice. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has reiterated that the next parliamentary elections would be conducted by her government despite the opposition demand for revival of caretaker government system. She has assured that there will not be any interference by the government and EC will remain independent and neutral. She also pointed out that since her government assumed office in 2009 the EC conducted 5,175 elections in the country and all these elections were free, fair and impartial.
But now, when democracy is in the process of taking firm roots in the country, does
Initially warranted by exigencies of circumstances this quick-fix solution called caretaker system was conceived as a short term solution to ensure smooth transition to democracy. This is basically an undemocratic system and can not by any means be a long-term cure for democracy.
Whenever general elections are held in a democratic country, there are neutral election observers, including impressive arrays of foreign teams, to oversee the election process. Interestingly, their reports carry a great deal of weight in determining whether there were irregularities and electoral fraud or malpractices and find out if the voting was conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner. Depending on reports of the neutral observers, election results gain credibility or otherwise. The new government is formed on the basis of election results endorsed by the neutral observers.
The new government is then sworn in for a fixed period when they have total power and full jurisdiction under all the laws of the land and subject to the rules and regulations set for conducting the state business. And they do so - good, bad or indifferent - whatever may be the opinion of the people in general and the parties in opposition, the incumbent government holds sway over the state apparatus on the pledge to do their mandated jobs.
How can the same government, whose coming to power is deemed constitutional and lawful and who had all the trust and expectations of the people to deliver, all of a sudden become untrustworthy and unfit to undertake what may be called its final lawful act, that is to arrange and hold the general elections in the country.
Recent months have witnessed a resurgence of interest in Caretaker government system after the country’s Supreme Court in a historical verdict dispensed with this undemocratic system. Strangely enough, the only argument proffered in this regard is that the incumbent government cannot be trusted to be neutral to ensure free and fair elections. The demand for caretaker government is the product of politicians’ mutual disrespect, distrust and disagreement.
It is not caretaker government but a truly independent and strong Election Commission (EC) that is a pre-requisite for free and fair elections to save democracy. The EC must be composed of non-partisan, capable and bold members. To have such an EC what the country needs is a political consensus across the board. If politicians care for the country, its people and democracy, reaching such consensus would not be difficult at all. What seems to be lacking is their true and moral commitment for the country.
Apart from an independent EC responsible for all aspects of conducting the elections in a free and fair manner, there are law courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court as well. There are many neutral watchdogs and above all, there is a vast, vibrant and vigorous media, both electronic and print. Moreover, can the government of any developing country afford to risk its credibility before international community and donor agencies by resorting to electoral fraud to hold on to power?
Nowhere else in the world such a strange mechanism as caretaker government system exists. In the aftermath of cancellation of the provision for caretaker government system by the Supreme Court, the demand for its restoration seems not only ridiculous but also ill-motivated.
This is exactly what happened in
After toying with several ideas to perpetuate indirect Army rule in the country this so-called caretaker government finally yielded to intense international pressure brought upon it for restoration of democracy. Finally it found no option but to hold parliamentary elections for handing over power to a democratically elected regime.
Elections held so far under the Awami League led government since it assumed office in 2009 have been free, fair and impartial. There were no allegations or reports of any electoral malpractice. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has reiterated that the next parliamentary elections would be conducted by her government despite the opposition demand for revival of caretaker government system. She has assured that there will not be any interference by the government and EC will remain independent and neutral. She also pointed out that since her government assumed office in 2009 the EC conducted 5,175 elections in the country and all these elections were free, fair and impartial.
The preconditions for democracy to survive and flourish do not include a caretaker government. They include healthy and independent democratic institutions that comprise the de-politicized civil administration and bureaucracy, the military, the judiciary, all academic institutions, and above all, the EC. Each must be equipped with competent, ethical and impartial individuals with sound and appropriate academic backgrounds. They all must be recruited and rewarded through a fair process with no political interferences. They must be kept non-partisan and sanctity of all these institutions must be preserved to ensure survival and flourishing of democracy.
Conclusion
Bangladesh
is going to observe its 40th independence anniversary in December, 2011. We
have already exceeded 4 decades of independence but in many segments we have
not yet achieved our expected standard i. e. Political, social, economic,
technological, or any other aspects, especially in Political arena we are still
facing chronic instability. On the eve of 40th independence anniversary the
question is raised that how much we have achieved political stability and how
much is developed our political culture. The answer is obviously
dissatisfactory. In Bangladesh ’s
long age it has already experienced thousand types of political violence,
instability, political conflicts, mistrust and misunderstanding among the
political parties and groups which are still on. This is called the parochial
political culture. The Non-Party Caretaker Government (NCG) is the outcome of
this hidebound and parochial political culture.
This system can continue for a critical and temporary moment but not forever. Now reformation can be done in the present system. Gradually this system can be knocked down. The time has come to rethink the interim government system, and all those involved in the electoral process should debate the issue and therefore reach a national consensus.
This system can continue for a critical and temporary moment but not forever. Now reformation can be done in the present system. Gradually this system can be knocked down. The time has come to rethink the interim government system, and all those involved in the electoral process should debate the issue and therefore reach a national consensus.
Reference:
The Book of Political Theory by
R.C Agarwal
Internet and also below this link