The contentious issue of the caretaker government system continues to be a central point of disagreement between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). It is striking that amid the pressing challenges facing the nation, the primary political debate revolves around the caretaker government.
To gain a comprehensive perspective, it’s essential to delve into the history of the caretaker system, considering that the BNP cannot take credit for a system it undermined.
The initial caretaker government in Bangladesh was formed in 1990 as a temporary measure. Subsequently, in 1996, the constitution formalized the caretaker government, emphasizing the appointment of a neutral figure acceptable to all parties to oversee the caretaker period.
In 2001, the Awami League adhered to the constitutional provisions and facilitated a peaceful transfer of power to a former chief justice, marking a historic moment as it didn’t necessitate a constitutional amendment.
Justice KM Hasan controversy
In 2004, the BNP intentionally modified the constitution, extending the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years. This change aimed to pave the way for KM Hasan, a former BNP secretary, to head the next caretaker government. This move ignited political outrage since KM Hasan lacked neutrality, which was a fundamental principle of the caretaker system.
The alteration of the caretaker system’s neutrality was widely seen as part of the BNP’s strategy to manipulate the upcoming general election. The BNP had a track record of electoral manipulation, including rigging by-elections during its previous term in office.
The Awami League vehemently opposed these changes, and public sentiment was largely in their favor. There was optimism for the promotion of liberal democracy, supported by various pro-liberation forces.
Interference with democratic values
However, the BNP obstructed the democratic values and the prevailing public sentiment. Khaleda Zia’s reluctance to resign and call early elections, which could have potentially resulted in an Awami League-led coalition, was contrary to democratic principles. The stars seemed aligned for the Awami League’s success, with its strong anti-terror stance during the global war on terror, similar to the Congress-style government elected in India in 2004.
Nonetheless, the Awami League had to wait until 2009 to assume power, as the BNP initially resisted the establishment of a neutral caretaker government. Instead, they appointed President Iajuddin Ahmed, a soil scientist, during a constitutional crisis.
The demise of the caretaker system
Following Iajuddin’s failure, a state of emergency was imposed nationwide in 2007, leading to a draconian caretaker government ruling for two years. This period saw violations of human rights, arbitrary detentions, and the suspension of constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights.
Despite these measures, the Awami League won convincingly in the 2008 election, and the caretaker system’s credibility eroded. Consequently, the caretaker system was abolished in 2011.
However, Bangladesh is still grappling with the adverse effects of the previous caretaker regime, including extrajudicial killings and other human rights issues.
The BNP’s inability to restore the caretaker system has resulted in disappointment. Their approach of stifling internal debate and criticism within their party raises concerns about their commitment to democratic principles. The BNP appears incapable of mounting a successful political movement or establishing a liberal democratic government.
Caretaker periods are typically exceptional in democratic systems. In Australia, ad hoc caretaker periods last for less than 30 days. During the emergency in Bangladesh, AL President Sheikh Hasina called for elections within 90 days. The previous caretaker government in Bangladesh overstayed its constitutional mandate by governing for two years.
Caretaker governments worldwide have also faced challenges. For instance, Pakistan’s recent caretaker government may extend its tenure beyond 90 days if elections are delayed. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has assumed the role of a caretaker government, and Sudan’s caretaker government has led to civil conflict.
The Awami League adheres to the constitution’s letter and spirit, while the BNP’s attempts to manipulate the rules-based order raise concerns about national security. This approach contradicts the essence of constructive politics.
