Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

On September 27, 2007 the Chief Advisor of Bangladesh’s military government Fakhruddin Ahmed addressed the United Nations General Assembly (transcript of his speech). It was a disappointing speech. This unelected technocrat, the civilian face of Bangladesh’s military government, chose to speak for the military rather than the people.

Following are some choice excerpts:

1. "Bangladesh reaffirms its unflinching commitment to universal and inalienable human rights. Any society committed to democracy requires the recognition and enforcement of human rights, and in Bangladesh the fight against corruption and the strengthening of the rule of law go hand in hand with the protection of human rights"
2. "On the domestic front, we have taken stern measures against militant groups and their patrons"
3. "Bangladesh represents an effective model of civil-military cooperation in crisis prevention." 

1. Bangladesh military has suspended all fundamental rights. It has jailed over 250,000 people. It is arresting citizens without any due process and without charge. It has beaten and tortured students, professors and journalists. It has intimidated the press, shut down television channels, provided "guidelines" to television stations as to who can be guests on talk shows, and it has banned publication of information that the military does not like.
2. While the military cracked down hard on protesting students in August, it has allowed Islamists to hold multiple demonstrations on the streets of Bangladesh. The military bowed to Islamists by banning a harmless cartoon and then proclaiming that the cartoon represented a "conspiracy" against Bangladesh. The military forced the editor of the Prothom Alo newspaper to apologize multiple times to the leader of the Islamists for publishing the cartoons.
3. The military is in charge of Bangladesh.  Military men have now been established in all major civilian ministries in the Bangladesh government. Civilians in Bangladesh take orders from their military bosses.

While in New York Fakhruddin Ahmed also spoke at the Asia Society. Dr. Ahmed was asked about the recent arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman for drawing a cartoon that elicited feigned outrage from the Islamists and the government. One attendee described the exchange as follows:

American think tank representative challenges FA on his statements about press freedom and mentions Arifur Rahman. Whole room goes silent. FA’s response (after awkward pause - only time he showed discomfort the whole evening): “You don’t realize that things could be a lot worse. We would have been within our rights to have much tighter controls on media, not that we have any controls at all - press is totally free. I understand that “some journalist may have been apprehended” and often this is for his own protection. But this is nothing that would not have happened at another time as well”.

There was a harsh silence after his response. That was one of the last questions and the American was surrounded by grateful BDs as the event closed thanking her for asking the qn. I wonder if they were scared to do the same, but it was clear that she represented the thoughts of a large # of the audience.

I am now convinced that Fakhruddin Ahmed has no idea what "freedom of the press" means. I also recall it was the KGB who used to arrest people for their own protection.

At another event at Columbia University, Fakhruddin Ahmed also gave a speech and took a limited number of questions. An attendee described some of the Q&A session:

arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman (asked by Dr. Austin); imprisonment and harassment of university teachers, students and others and Bangladeshi refugees in India . In his response although Dr Fakhruddin maintained that his government is “respectful” (?) of the freedom of press, he clearly avoided the issue of cartoonist Arifur Rahman’s arrest. But the question regarding imprisonment and persecution of university teachers, asked by a young South Asian student, shattered the image which Dr. Fakhruddin created of his government through his sugar-coated speech. It was interesting to notice, how Dr. Fakhruddin’s face turned grumpy as the question was asked. And his answer to this particular question was old rhetoric: that it was initially a “minor” incident that was magnified later through some anti-government agents in order to destabilize the country.

There was nothing minor about the protests in August. Tens of thousands of people marched and the government response was swift and brutal.

It appears that Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed came to America to sell the military regime to the world. We were looking for someone to represent the people of Bangladesh at this year’s UN General Assembly; instead we got an apologist for the military government.

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh]

Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, the civilian face of Bangladesh’s military government, has arrived in America. For the first time in sixteen years Bangladesh will be represented at the UN General Assembly by an unelected technocrat. While Dr. Ahmed lacks a constituency back in Bangladesh he should feel quite at home in New York. In January Bangladesh experienced its first UN-instigated (if not backed) coup when the most senior UN official in Bangladesh, Renata Lok Dessalien, warned that there would be "implications" for the Bangladesh army’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions if it took part in the scheduled elections. Later in the day Bangladeshi generals dutifully obliged by walking into the Bangladeshi President’s office and demanding that power be handed over to technocrats chosen by the military. Apparently participating in a rigged election is far worse than participating in a coup, according to the United Nations. Thus was installed Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed as the Chief Advisor of Bangladesh’s "caretaker government".

In New York Dr. Ahmed is now amongst his constituents. The Bangladesh military government has taken a number of steps recently to prepare the ground for this trip. On September 9, Dr. Ahmed declared on national television that the military government was easing the ban on indoor politics. Less than a week later Dr. Ahmed granted an interview to the BBC to discuss the military government’s "commitment" to a "roadmap" toward democracy. It was yet another interview granted by the Chief Advisor to a foreign news outlet without granting a single interview to the Bangladeshi press. The headline out of the BBC interview was that Dr. Ahmed declared that Bangladesh was not under military rule. Dr. Ahmed also made the incredible claim that his government believed in freedom of press and had not imposed any restrictions on the media:

About the closure of talk shows on private TV channels at the instruction of a government agency, he said the government believes in freedom of mass media and they had not imposed any restrictions on them.

Fakhruddin said the government accepted and was benefited by criticisms made at the talk shows. However, he admitted that an advisory was given to the TV channels after the Dhaka University incident last month, which he said is a temporary measure.

"We’ve given full freedom for last seven-eight months. There is no dearth of goodwill or sincerity in ensuring freedom of the media," he said, adding that the criticisms are very important but those must be objective and constructive.

Dr. Ahmed neglected to mention, amongst other things, the intimidation of the media by army personnel, the very well-documented beatings of journalists, the recent arrest of a cartoonist, and the talk-show "guidelines" handed down by the military government to television channels. The press in Bangladesh has been mostly bludgeoned into submission while the Chief Advisor maintains his government "believes" in freedom of the press.

The interview to the foreign media was just in time for the visit to Bangladesh by John Gastright, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary for South Asian affairs. In Bangladesh Gastright offered support for the military government in Bangladesh and said that the U.S. looks forward to "full democracy" in Bangladesh. To underscore the point that Bangladesh was not being ruled by the military, Mr. Gastright, in an act of diplomatic jujitsu, met with General Moeen U Ahmed, Bangladesh’s army chief:

About his meeting with the army chief, Gastright said he had an excellent meeting with Gen Moeen U Ahmed, where he congratulated the chief of army staff on the important role the joint forces are playing in support of the caretaker government.

"I welcomed General Moeen’s repeated assurances that he and the army do not have any political ambition," Gastright said.

John Gastright got what he came for in Dhaka: an assurance from the military that the military camps all around the country, the military officials heading civilian departments, the military detaining and torturing people, the military intimidating and shutting down media outlets, the military beating students and journalists, the military arresting university professors, and the military chief making political speeches - all of it - did not mean that the military was running the country. It was indeed a "Silent Coup", as the Economist put it back in January.

Mr. Gastright’s support for Bangladesh’s military government was not surprising, nor was it new. In August, representing the Bush Administration Mr. Gastright appeared in front of the U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee and offered support for Bangladesh’s military government, as well as the military government of Pakistan. In his prepared testimony, he stated:

From the beginning, the new Caretaker Government stressed that it sought to restore, not replace, Bangladesh’s democracy, by undertaking a comprehensive reform aimed at leading the country toward free, fair, and credible elections. The government insisted that it would not be rushed in this difficult task. Initially we were troubled that this dramatic shift in government might signal a hidden agenda to indefinitely delay a return to democracy and conceal a secret military coup. We articulated these concerns to the new Caretaker Government immediately, calling for a roadmap to elections to be announced as soon as possible and advocating a lifting of the ban on political activity.  We also insisted that, while we applauded the anti-corruption effort, it would enjoy our continued support only if conducted with respect for international standards of human rights and with due regard for due process under the law of Bangladesh.  Thus far the Caretaker Government has been open and responsive to our views, and has taken steps to address each of our concerns.

During testimony it was revealed that Mr. Gastright gets his information on the progress of the Bangladesh military government from Farook Sobhan, the special envoy of the Bangladesh military government. However, Mr. Sobhan had not briefed Mr. Gastright adequately. The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on South Asia Congressman Gary Ackerman spelled out his doubts in his opening statement:

In Bangladesh, a care-taker government backed by the Army has delayed elections until sometime next year and has instead arrested one former Prime Minister, is threatening to arrest another and has imprisoned hundreds if not thousands of politicians and business leaders on vague charges of corruption.  While I believe that neither of the two major parties in Bangladesh have brought any great good to the Bangladeshi people, I’m hard pressed to understand how an extra-constitutional process brings about political reform.  From where I sit this looks remarkably like what Musharraf did in Pakistan – clear the field of the mainstream parties and inadvertently open the door to the Islamist parties, some of whom have particularly odious associations with known terrorists and terrorist organizations.  The Administration has previously described Bangladesh as a moderate Muslim democratic state.  After the care-taker government gets done however, describing Bangladesh as moderate and democratic will strain credulity.

Under withering questioning from Congressman Ackerman, Mr. Gastright, who had earlier stated that all was well in Bangladesh was now not too sure:

Ackerman: In your statement you note that the steps taken by President Ahmed are all actions permitted by the Bangladesh Constitution. It is my understanding that the state of emergency that was declared cannot exceed four months without further parliamentary review. Since there is no parliament to review the current state of emergency that’s lasted beyond the four months, under what legal authority is the current government of Bangladesh proceeding?

Gastright: I’ll have to get back with you sir. I’ll have to bring that information back to you sir. I don’t have it.

Ackerman: Do we believe its proceeding under legal authority?

Gastright: The information I have is that the current caretaker government is a constitutional entity.

Ackerman: Proceeding under legal authority?

Gastright: Yes sir.

Ackerman: But we don’t know under what theory.

Gastright: The best information I have is that the constitution of the country provides for a caretaker government and that this falls within that construct.

Ackerman: But I was correct in saying that they have outlived their constitutionally approved life.

Gastright: I am not aware of that sir. I’ll have to investigate and I’ll have to get back to you.

While the chief adviser is likely to have a fairly productive stay in the United States, especially after the support he has recently received from the US government through its visiting assistant secretary of state, John Gastright, his over-enthusiasm for speaking to the international media and gain support from the international community is certainly interesting. It is becoming increasingly clear that this administration, which hardly has any constitutional legitimacy any more, is seeking credibility and legitimacy from the international community to remain in power in this country. It is no secret that several foreign diplomats stationed in Dhaka played a direct role in bringing this military-driven government about, and has tried over the last several months to prop it up. That perhaps explains the chief adviser’s obvious gratitude to our international ‘partners’ and his tendency to explain his government’s actions to the international community through the international media rather than to the people of this country through the local media.

…

While the political mix here at home becomes more complicated by the day, the Fakhruddin administration and its backers are busy pandering to the west. That they feel a greater accountability to the international community than to the people of this country is not only unfortunate but will ultimately prove counterproductive. General Musharraf of Pakistan is only now realising that the staunchest of international allies, including the United States, are of little use when the people in one’s own country come clamouring for change. Our administration should learn from that, and realise that its credibility and that of all its actions depends almost entirely on the holding of credible and acceptable elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad within a reasonable period of time. If it fails to do that, or worse, if it intentionally weakens democratic institutions and short-changes democracy, the support of the west will hardly give it the legitimacy or the protection that it will need.

On Wednesday Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed will address the United Nations General Assembly ostensibly on behalf of the people of Bangladesh - a people that are today living under military rule and without their fundamental rights. Dr. Ahmed will be at the podium at the General Assembly because the military, not the people, sent him there. This Wednesday he can either speak for the people of Bangladesh or speak for the military. Bangladesh waits to hear what he has to say, and on whose behalf he says it.

A State of Emergency has been declared in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has, by a quirk in its Constitution, been legally transformed into a dictatorship. A democracy of 125 million people is now at the mercy of a handful of unelected rulers and the military.

Bangladesh has given up a lot of essential liberty for a little bit of temporary security - it remains to be seen whether it deserves or will get either.

Bangladesh was scheduled to hold national parliamentary elections on January 22, 2007. However, those elections were postponed and a State of Emergency was declared by the President on January 9th. Now Bangladesh faces an uncertain future.

Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy with a largely ceremonial President. An unusual aspect of Bangladesh’s political system is that Bangladesh’s elections are held under a non-partisan Caretaker Government.  This is to ensure free and fair elections. The Caretaker Government system was added to the Constitution in 1996 after widespread public protests in response to a fraudulent election held in February of that year. Later that year, Bangladesh held its first free and fair elections under the Caretaker Government.

Late last year, the five year term of the government led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), a center-right party allied with right wing Islamist parties, ended and the prime minister, Khaleda Zia, handed over power to a Caretaker Government. However, the handover did not go smoothly.

A Caretaker Government consists of a Chief Advisor and up to ten other Advisors who ensure that the executive functions of the government continue to function properly while assisting in the preparation for an election to be held within 90 days of assuming power. Under the Bangladesh Constitution, according to Article 58C, the Chief Advisor is to be appointed according to the following rules:

(3) The President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:

Provided that if such retired Chief Justice is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired next before the last retired Chief Justice.

(4) If no retired Chief Justice is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:

Provided that if such retired Judge is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired next before the last such retired Judge.

(5) If no retired judge of the Appellate Division is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall, after consultation, as far as practicable, with the major political parties, appoint the Chief Adviser from among citizens of Bangladesh who are qualified to be appointed as Advisers under this article.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, if the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (5) cannot be given effect to, the President shall assume the functions of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Care-taker Government in addition to his own functions under this Constitution.

Amid protests from the opposition parties, Iajuddin Ahmed, the BNP appointed President, failed to follow the rules for choosing a Chief Advisor and instead himself assumed the functions of the Chief Advisor by directly invoking Article 58C(5) of the Constitution.

After appointing himself Chief Advisor, he appointed and then ignored the remaining Advisors. As the opposition protests increased, he ordered the army onto the streets, ostensibly to protect the elections. The opposition parties, led by the Awami League, demanded the resignation of the Chief Advisor (President) and the postponement of elections. They argued that the national voter list was manipulated to enable the BNP to retain power in another fraudulent election. The opposition argued that the Chief Advisor (President) was biased and should step down.

Eventually, as the opposition parties boycotted the elections and began a program of nationwide strikes, international pressure began to build up on the President. The United Nations, the European Union, and other international election observers withdrew support for the elections and urged its postponement. Finally, under immense pressure, Iajuddin Ahmed resigned as Chief Advisor on January 9th. However, before he resigned he declared a State of Emergency.

The Bangladesh Constitution has an unfortunate provision for declaring a State of Emergency. Under normal circumstances a State of Emergency cannot be declared without the consent of the prime minister and it must also be presented to the parliament for approval at the earliest possible time. Article 141A(1 & 2) lays out the procedure for declaring a State of Emergency:

(1) If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security or economic life of Bangladesh, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency:

Provided that such Proclamation shall require for its validity the prior counter signature of the Prime Minister.

(2) A Proclamation of Emergency-

(a) may be revoked by a subsequent Proclamation;

(b) shall be laid before Parliament;

(c) shall cease to operate at the expiration of one hundred and twenty days, unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution of Parliament:

Provided that if any such Proclamation is issued at a time when Parliament stands dissolved or the dissolution of Parliament takes place during the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in sub-clause (c), the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which Parliament first meets after its re-constitution, unless before that expiration of the meets after its re-constitution, unless before that expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by Parliament. [Emphasis added by me.]

However, when there is a Caretaker Government, there is no parliament and no prime minister. There is a provision in the Constitution which gives the President authority to act on his own under a Caretaker Government. Article 58E states:

Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 48(3), 141A(1) and 141C(1) of the Constitution, during the period the Non-Party Care-taker government is functioning, provisions in the constitution requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister or upon his prior counter-signature shall be ineffective. [Emphasis added by me.]

 Article 58D of the Constitution spells out the normal functioning of the Caretaker Government:

(1) The Non-Party Care-taker Government shall discharge its functions as an interim government and shall carry on the routine functions of such government with the aid and assistance of persons in the services of the Republic; and, except in the case of necessity for the discharge of such functions it shall not make any policy decision.

(2) The Non-Party Care-taker Government shall give to the Election Commission all possible aid and assistance that may be required for holding the general election of members of parliament peacefully, fairly and impartially.

It was not envisioned that a Caretaker Government would do much more than ensure the functioning of government and move quickly toward an election. It was certainly not envisioned that a State of Emergency would be declared during the tenure of a Caretaker Government. However, taken together, Article 141A(1) and Article 58E give the President almost dictatorial powers under the Caretaker Government. This President, Iajuddin Ahmed, used that combination of Articles to unilaterally declare the State of Emergency.

The State of Emergency that was declared also suspends basic rights normally guaranteed in the Constitution. Article 141B of the Constitution states:

While a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, nothing in articles 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 shall restrict the power of the State to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would, but for the provisions contained in Part III of this Constitution, be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent of the incompetence, cease to have effect as soon as the Proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have effect. [Emphasis added by me.]

Articles 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the Constitution collectively guarantee freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of procession or occupation, and the right to property. In other words, these articles collectively guarantee rights that underpin democratic societies. Thankfully, Article 41, the freedom of religion, cannot be suspended under a State of Emergency.

Having declared the State of Emergency and called out the army, Iajuddin Ahmed resigned as Chief Advisor and then appointed a private citizen, a former central banker named Fakhruddin Ahmed (no relation to the President), as the Chief Advisor. This appointment once again violates Article 58C of the Constitution. A further 5 Advisors have now been appointed.

Bangladesh is in uncharted constitutional waters. According to the Constitution, the elections must be held within 90 days of the previous government leaving power, barring an act of God. The elections have been postponed and there is no constitutional provision to reschedule the elections. The President is now not accountable to the parliament or the people. The State of Emergency, according to the Constitution, will expire in 120 days. However, there is nothing preventing the President from declaring another State of Emergency to extend the current one. Since he has no prime minister to countersign his declaration and no parliament to check the State of Emergency, the President under the Caretaker Government has unlimited power.

Bangladesh is now at the mercy of one unelected President, one unconstitutionally appointed Chief Advisor, and 5 other unelected Advisors. Bangladesh is also now at the mercy of the military. Bangladesh has a long and brutal history of military coups and takeovers. It now stands at the mercy of the military once again. What has occurred in Bangladesh is nothing short of a constitutional coup d’état.

The hard earned democracy in Bangladesh may be slipping away. Already rules have been passed by the Caretaker Government to curb fundamental rights, the press has been threatened, and the military and the paramilitary forces have begun raiding suspected political criminals and corrupt leaders.

The optimistic observer will say that these measures are temporary and the State of Emergency will soon be lifted and a free and fair election will be held. However, all decisions now depend on unelected leaders and the military. This ruling group may choose to steer the country out of this crisis or may choose to hand over power to the military - it remains to be seen.

If Bangladesh comes out of this period of uncertainty, it will surely need to revisit the provisions in the Constitution that allow one man to control the fate of the country, without any checks or balances. Today, Bangladesh is barely a republic, and it is very much in doubt whether the people of Bangladesh can keep it.

 [Disclaimer: My father was one of three Election Commissioners during the first free and fair elections held in June of 1996 under the Caretaker Government.]