You are on page 1of 5

This article was published in the Dhaka Tribune, Dhaka, Bangladesh on 24 Sep

2014.
The Person vs The Party :
the case against Article 70 of the Bangladesh Constitution
It is the ambition of every scientist, and logical thinker to identify the single
formula, or leverage point that controls the observed condition or system.
In our national politics today, something is very strange. Everything is in
place parliament sessions, talk shows, civic body discourses, street
protests, and yet there is an irritating undertone of discord everywhere.
This article theorizes that this discord springs from the Constitution itself
in fact, from ust one !rticle of the Constitution.
"ur national politics is such that, the ruling and opposition parties,
although not much di#erent from each other, are always at loggerheads.
$hy is it that the main driving force in the country is slowly gravitating
towards the bureaucracy and the business class instead of responding to
the needs of grass roots political leadership % $hy is the people becoming
slowly alienated from government and politics despite having sacri&ced
much for the golden goose called democracy % The law of causation says
that a problem must be dealt with at the correct level. 'uper&cial cosmetic
treatments do not &( problems permanently. )aults or problems not
identi&ed at the proper depth cannot be &(ed with &nality and continue to
persist.
*+ years after its independence, no one doubts that this nation is still
&rmly committed to democracy no matter how fragile it may seem at
times. ,nlike -akistan with a parallel history, where only one
democratically elected government has been able to complete its term so
far in its entire history, in .angladesh, there have been four democratically
elected successive governments in the last /+ years with a brief
interregnum of / years of semi0military rule. !lthough that streak of 1fair
elections2 have been broken in the last election, the constitutional process
is still intact. This poverty stricken nation has given to the world several
stellar gifts the $orld 3anguage 4ay, the novel concept of 5icro0Credit
recognised by the world through the 6obel -eace -rize given to 4r. 7unus,
and yes, the concept of a Caretaker 8overnment responsible for giving four
fair elections to this troubled land. !lthough unfairly and untimely
discredited in the country of its own birth, the C8 system, through
duplication, still stands the promise of presenting credible elections in other
third world countries where free and fair elections form the only stumbling
block to real democracy. !mong other maor achievements of this country
are a growth rate of over 9: for the last ;/ years, increasing literacy and
life e(pectancy rates, and a steady rise in foreign e(change reserves. 'o it
can be said that not everything is wrong with this nation. "ne might even
say that this nation has already produced the sparks of genius that may
eventually start the huge bon&re of progress one day. 'o, what is the cause
of today2s political stagnation %
5any today doubt the sagacity of having implanted democracy in our
country in its pure western form through the framing of a Constitution that
did not relate properly to the socio0political make0up of its people and its
time in history. To accept this totally does not do ustice to the great strides
the nation has made as mentioned above. <owever it seems that
something fundamental is really wrong with the political system.
The nation has seen an unending parade of below average, in some cases,
outright criminal elements holding the helms of power. In the absence of a
robust socio0political system which brings gifted individuals to the forefront
of national life, the politics of today depends solely on glorifying a few
political lineages which holds glossy .ollywood0es=ue appeal with the
masses, reminding us of 5oghul times.
$hy is it that this nation is still unsure about its foothold on democracy
even though almost all the basic instruments of democracy are there% $hy
cannot political parties deliver to the people in a responsible and orderly
manner% $hy is it that the system has bred so much corruption even
though the people and the ruling middle class are basically law abiding,
compassionate, honest and 8od0fearing conscientious citizens% $hy is it
that the political parties cannot evolve from within to produce a hierarchy
of responsible leaders that can give direction to the nation% $hy is it that
the government machinery consisting of essentially capable and
knowledgeable individuals carries the unenviable stigma of ine>ciency and
lethargy % Can the answer to all this be found in one simple formula or
answer% The answer may be a resounding yes.
!braham 3incoln2s famous phrase, 18overnment of the people, by the
people, for the people2 hallows the dignity of the 1person2 acting
collectively as the 1people2. The democratic set up has directly evolved
from the person to person relationship that e(ists between leaders and the
individual citizens. To allow this direct relationship between the person and
the person2s representative to become vague and feeble is to allow
autocracy, or dictatorship to creep in. This is e(actly what has been
allowed to happen in .angladesh, time and again, for the last *+ years, and
will continue to do so in the future no matter how many 1anti0autocratic2
Constitutional !mendments are brought in.
The concept of the 1party2 is a later construct to facilitate, and not to usurp
the dignity of the 1person2. The operating word in democracy is 1people2,
not the 1party2. If this was not so, then the need to vote for persons could
be written o# entirely, and replaced with voting for political parties only.
.ut, today, the 1party2 reigns supreme trampling the dignity of the 1person2.
This has been done through !rticle ?@ of the .angladesh Constitution, also
known as the 1!nti 4efection Aule2 or the 1!nti )loor Crossing Aule2. The
party has been made absolute, the person dispensable. This has slowly but
surely created a divide between the leaders and the people which today
seems irreconcilable. The public endemically treat politicians with apathy
and disrespect. Conversely, politicians treat the public with disdain and
disparagement. "nly the sel&sh, self0serving few of the public gravitate
towards them.
!rticle ?@ of the .angladesh Constitution, forbids 5-s, under the threat of
e(pulsion from -arliament, to vote against the party line as delineated by
the party 1high command2 and ultimately the -arty Chief. In other words
the elected representatives or 5-s must vote in favour of the -arty Chief
and not in favour of their constituent voters, or the public. The loyalty must
be to the party and not to the people. The loyalty must be to the -arty
Chief overriding even other party members. In a nutshell, if the 5-s want
to support the interests of their constituents, and if this di#ers from the
view of the -arty Chief, then they must vote against the interests of their
own constituents. This aspect of the .angladesh Constitution directly
contradicts the fundamental basis of democracy as is practised in all tested
democracies like the ,B, ,'!, )rance, Canada, !ustralia etc. !rticle ?@
ensures that the party prevail, and the person is gagged.
.y its very nature, the 1!nti 4efection Aule2 discourages democratic
practices within the political parties and encourages blind sycophancy. Top
leaders do not heed the views of the general membership of the party and
behave with them with condescending disdain. The general public is held
hostage by the political class. It replaces democracy with 1democratic
autocracy2 or 1autocratic democracy2 neither of which is democracy. It
fosters dynastic rule, hypocrisy, and the rule of money. It discourages the
arrival of new leaders in the party causing stagnation in party leadership,
something that has plagued both maor parties in the country.
! very important aspect of democratic government is its ability to propel
forward, the gifted and talented ones in positions of leadership. If 5-s are
not allowed to demonstrate their own personal =ualities and talents in a
truly positive way, then one of the main purposes of democracy is
defeated. E(position of di#ering viewpoints on the Coor of -arliament is
essential to the Cowering of talent and character. !rticle ?@ which chokes
o# dissent, only promotes spineless, obse=uious utterances in the <ouse of
-arliament which recently has become the butt of comical entertainment
emanating from television and the internet.
6o government or society can e(ist for long, if the interests of the minority
or special interest groups are not respected and protected. ! crucially
important aspect of democracy is its ability to protect the interests of these
groups. $ithout any practical means available in the practice of democracy
that protects the rights of those not in the maority, this vital need is
achieved in democracy, in special situations from time to time, when the
maority cannot form a viable government without the help of the minority
parties. ,nfortunately this has not happened in this country. 8overnments
are elected with overwhelming maority, and governments so formed start
to act dictatorially. 5-s elected in this way &nd it all too convenient to act
imperiously and arrogate to themselves ta( free cars, 1development
spending money2 and a variety of other undue privileges, without giving
two hoots to the public e(cept come election time. In this situation, the
best way to have minorities and special interest groups heard at the
national level would be by empowering individual 5-s, who although
elected on a party basis, would take their stand individually in parliament,
and this can only be achieved by abrogating !rticle ?@.
If the reader can so far understand this simple stratagem of clinically
emasculating the general body of 5-s in a democratic set0up through the
1!nti )loor Crossing Aule2, then through a little more introspection he can
comprehend the colossal wrong that this tiny but pernicious clause has
heaped upon this nation over the last *+ years. The very concept of a
viable opposition in -arliament has been negated in every elected
government of the past because of the inability of the opposition party to
woo over 5-s from the ruling party on controversial and important issues
which could demonstrate to the nation the political power of the opposition
as well. It is the duty of the party in opposition to demonstrate the
alternative solution and to positively inCuence the party in power on
matters of national interest. The opposition cannot be e(pected to sit
indolently in -arliament for 9 years all the time trying to get the speaker2s
attention to speak for a few minutes on the Coor. 6ot guaranteeing the
right of the minority opposition to make a genuine political point in
-arliament propels the opposition 5-s on to the streets where they are sure
to be given a proper hearing. This is e(actly why in all the governments
this country has had so far, the opposition has resorted to street protests
rather than participating in -arliament. Even if a solitary opposition 5-
decided to participate in the <ouse, he could not do that, on the threat of
e(pulsion from the party and the seat in -arliament. The 1winner take all2
philosophy fostered by !rticle ?@ goes diametrically against the spirit of
democracy. ,nfortunately, until the time that !rticle ?@ is made ine#ective,
this political phenomenon of the opposition not willing to participate in
-arliament will continue to confound us.
The argument has been made that abrogating !rticle ?@ will &ll the country
with horse trading and unsurpassed corruption. !lthough it is di>cult to
imagine how corruption of the scale seen in the last *+ years can be
surpassed by any government entity anywhere in the world, it is very much
conceivable that with the annulment of !rticle ?@, initially corruption in the
corridors of -arliament shall prevail for some time and might even blossom.
<owever, in this situation corruption shall become visible especially in front
of the electorate and ultimately capable of being eradicated by the
electorate in general. $hat cannot be seen cannot be eradicated.
Corruption, as has been seen in the last *+ years is an invisible
phenomenon which bene&ts only the select few in the realms of power. It
is entirely conceivable that if the public identi&es corruption as something
that only bene&ts the select few they may choose to e(orcise corruption
through selecting honest politicians in future elections.
The right of an elected representative or 5- to vote according to his own
conviction and conscience is unassailable in developed democracies of the
,B, ,'!, Canada, !ustralia etc. "ne important e(ception is India. !lthough
not included in India2s original Constitution an 1anti0defection rule2 was
introduced in ;DE9 as the 9/
nd
amendment to the Indian Constitution. This
became necessary to prevent 5-s from switching sides in return for money,
power, o>ce or sel&sh interests in abeyance to the needs of the
constituents and the national interest. It should be noted that this was
done +E years after independence and even then the 9/
nd
amendment
incorporated clauses which did not give total power to the party high
command over legislators. )or e(ample the 9/
nd
amendment allows the
5-s to vote against the party line if they vote 1en bloc2 with one third or
more members of their own party. The -arty 3eaders therefore must
always keep in mind the views of dissenting 5-s in the lower rungs.
!nother important e(ample is 'outh !frica where the original Constitution
of ;DDF incorporated the anti0defection rule. <owever, very soon in /@@/
the evil of this rule was realised and Coor crossing was allowed.
Considering the above, it appears that allowing )loor Crossing in
-arliament, thereby allowing the views of the people to be heard through
the 5-s is possibly the single easy stroke that can radically and positively
change the moribund political scenario in this country. Even if full
autonomy to vote independently cannot be given right away, considering
the Indian e(ample, the same Indian e(ample should be e(amined to give
limited powers to the 5-s to vote independently. 7es, there would be a few
vicious verbal e(changes turning into &st &ghts that we often see in the
-arliaments of Taiwan, Borea, India and other states. 7es, there would be
some price bargaining and power mongering. 7es, there would be some
betrayals and in&delities. <owever, through all this the people would be
able to see the true character, and the ability of the individual 5-s. In the
end, the people would &nally matter in policy making, and democracy
would be made more meaningful. In the end, good and talented people in
all spheres of life would be propelled to the forefront. If the genius of this
nation could give the world the $orld 3anguage 4ay and the 5icro0Credit
system in its short history of only *+ years, it surely has the courage to
make democracy more productive by making !rticle ?@ less asphy(iating.
Syed Mujtaba Quader
sm=uader//Gyahoo.com

You might also like