Assessing the Caretaker Government

It's more than 13 months since the Caretaker Government took office. However, it only took a few weeks for liberal expatriate Bangladeshis on the blogosphere to start shifting around uncomfortably in their seats. I have always viewed such perspectives as well-meaning but typically naive and lacking in strategic outlook. Just as one cannot understand an image on a computer screen by looking at just one pixel, so the performance of the caretaker government cannot be judged by individual shortcomings. But this is how the liberal Bangladeshi appears to critique the performance of the caretaker government. Individual human rights excesses, sometimes grotesque is their execution, must be responded to without exception. But their occurrence can not be be amplified into reasons to call the entire performance of the government into question.

Below is something I wrote on the Yahoo! group Uttorshuri in 19 April 2007 on this topic.

+++

This is in response to recent posts that suggest that the caretaker government is about to: (a) end the free press; (b) usurp power; and, as a result of (a) and (b), end democratic governance in Bangladesh as we know it.

On the first issue, the recent statement to the media from the Press Information Department contains the following: "You are requested to be more vigilant to ensure that the mass media do not provide any room for activities, propaganda or reports that are unnecessarily harassing or misinformative about anyone." Judging from the negative reaction to this statement from some observers, it would seem that there is some support for the media sponsoring "activities, propaganda or reports that are unnecessarily harassing or misinformative about anyone". What isn't clear is how this request indicates that the press is--or will be--censored. There is nothing in this extract, or any other part of the statement, that suggests the press is being warned off criticizing the caretaker government.

More important, what seems to be absent from the criticisms of PID is any understanding of the intentions behind the statement, which for the purposes of my point I will link to the decision to bar Sheikh Hasina for returning to Bangladesh. The political dysfunction of the Khaleda-Hasina years should be fresh in everyone's mind. We are fortunate that the economy remained sound during these years because a combination of political and economic volatility would have brought Bangladesh close to becoming a failed state. The PID intervention is part of a broad-based attempt by the caretaker government to restore and maintain political stability (I thought this was obvious but it seems necessary to state this in the wake of the derision being directed at the government right now). Is there any doubt that Sheikh Hasina, for all her millions of votes and airtime on the BBC World Service, would bring further chaos to public life in Bangladesh if she were to return? Is that what we want? What alternatives are available to the government? Can the critics of current government action offer any?

On usurping power, some members of this mailing list seem to think that this has already happened, or will happen by stealth. Let me be a little provocative and ask the question, "So what?" This is worth asking if the alternative means a resumption of the blood-strewn Khaleda-Hasina hate fest. Which brings us to the end of democratic governance in Bangladesh, with some of us, hammer in hand, already striking nails into the coffin of the caretaker government. Here's some news: there are more than three nails. In fact there are dozens and those who are inclined to judge should be ready to hit them all on the head before we consign the government to the grave. Let us investigate government positions on:

1. Domestication of international / regional conventions of human rights
2. Ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court
3. Death penalty
4. Watchdog institutions
5. Forms of discrimination
6. Minority rights
7. Freedom of movement
8. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
9. Freedom of expression
10. Independence, impartiality and credibility of the electoral authority
11. Equal campaigning opportunities
12. Validity of election results
13. International verification of election results

Now try out these:

14. Separation of powers
15. Powers of Parliament
16. Existence of political parties
17. Political pluralism
18. Control over law enforcement institutions
19. Type of judicial system
20. Independence of judges
21. Performance of judicial system
22. Rights of citizens
23. Security of citizens and respect for law
24. Incidence of corruption
25. Legal system for fighting corruption
26. Implementation of legal system
27. Adherance to international law regarding anti-corruption efforts
28. Reform measures for addressing corruption
29. Institutional capacity of state organs
30. Competencies for extending democratic reforms
31. Transparency and participatory nature of budgeting process
32. Openness to investment and start-up time for new business

How about:

33. Access to capital
34. Customs regulation
35. Labour regulations
36. Transparency of extractive industries
37. Incidence of illegal extraction of natural resources
38. Incidence of civil unrest
39. Accession to conflict preventing international / regional agreements
40. Respect for international law on managing external conflicts
41. Contributing to multilateral peacekeeping efforts
42. Peace mediation
43. Enforcement of multilateral resolutions on terrorism
44. Prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

And finally:

45. Signing and domestication of ILO conventions
46. National strategic plans on environmental sustainability, women's
empowerment and responding to HIV and AIDS (and other communicable diseases)
47. Political will for national response to crises (as set out in 46 above)
48. Implementation of regional economic integration agenda
49. Degree of integration into regional economic processes
50. Involvement in peer review mechanisms for governance
51. Interest in addressing migration issues in multilateral and bilateral fora
52. &c. &c.

There are many such 'indicators' that allow us to see how well a government is doing. An assessment based on the above might be helpful, if anyone cares to try. Without this, comments praising or deriding the caretaker government mean nothing. Indeed, the caretaker government would have to flunk on a majority of such indicators before we can take aim with our rotten tomatoes.

But why are we already casting doubt over the caretaker government? The comments now appearing on this forum about the actions--and by extension the legitimacy--of the caretaker government are not contributions that befit a serious situation. On the contrary, they reveal the impatience, immaturity, political illiteracy (and maybe even partiality) of people who wish to do right through the written word. Apart from venting spleen, which everyone is entitled to do from time to time, these contributions offer little of substance that is relevant or useful to the current situation in Bangladesh.